Woman Sues Gap For Miscarriage

[Details]

My issue with this is that becoming pregnant is a personal decision that your employer should not be required to become financially responsible for. As an example my good friend owns a small Interior Design Business. Last year her salaried Office Manager became pregnant. In the 5th month of the pregnancy the employee had to go on light duty and my friend had to hire a second hourly employee to cover for the hours and work lost by the salaried Office Manager.
So how is this fair? This womans personal decision to have a child ended up costing my friend's business around $20,000.

Precisely what I meant - it may be the law, but a lot of people don't like it.

As to how this is fair - it's not about fair. Laws aren't about fair - they're about making society work. It's to society's benefit to allow women to work, but we also expect people to be willing to reproduce. So, the law says that the business has to make accomodations. It's not fair that a business has to make accomodations to a disabled person either - but they do. It's not all that fair that you have to hold a person's job for them when they go on disability of any kind - that 5 months could have been for any disease - including many that are personal choices (liver failure from some previous overdrinking, any medical issue relating to overweight, cigarette smoking, etc.). Taxes aren't fair - you pay more or less than the value of what you get from them. Social security isn't fair. But fair isn't the main goal - the goal is to make society work - fairness is a secondary consideration.

If not for laws like this - a ton of people, myself included couldn't afford to get pregnant (or have any medical issue hit) - or when they are pregnant and something goes slightly wrong, they'd be destroyed.

 

[Marthatex]

I suspect this woman has/had a weak cervix, which means the strain of twins added to exertion might cause the babies to, essentially, fall out. It happened to a friend of mine. She finally had to have a surgical procedure after she got pregnant that effectively closed the cervix off and she had to have a C section. Even then she had to stay in bed for the last 5 months. I did all her shopping for her during that time.

Well, sure, this is true, but if she were seeing her OB doctor regularly then surely he would tell her she had a weak cervix, to go on bed rest, etc. He only told her not to lift "heavy boxes". Well, a box of crop tops might not be too heavy, but a box of low-rider jeans might be alot heavier. What's heavy? Just what boxes did she lift?

On the other side of it, my sister-in-law bore healthy twins almost to term I believe, and worked almost to the end; but she was a professor and had a desk job so to speak.

 

[kidzndogznme]

I worked in retail before my first child was born. I had to do the same work as everyone else, which included lifting boxes off shelves in layaway, working 9 hours a day, sometimes not getting breaks as I should, etc. I had male and female managers and the females were the absolute worst as far as consideration went. One in particular, who was also pregnant and due around the same time as I was, was awful. She would order me to lift heavy objects, crawl around on the floor cleaning, etc. I kept telling them I couldn't do these things and she would tell me to do it anyway. I finally refused and she then huffed and hmphed and did it herself. Granted I was very very young then (just 20) so I didn't have any idea about law. I ended up going into premature labor on the job. They had to give me 6 shots of Brethine to stop the contractions at 2 cm dilated. I was on bed rest and Brethine for the remainder of the pregnancy. My daughter was born healthy, no thanks to my managers and my own stupidity. My manager ended up losing her baby.

There deffinitly more to this story. I can not believe that any boss would just blatenly disregard the fact a women is pregnant with twins and insist she do heavey manual labor.
I just can't believe that.

mjak

 

[Old Broad]

I'm glad your baby was born healthy kidzndogznme!!
I think it's important in this story for us to be reminded that a young woman trying to keep her job may not right away stand up for herself when she isn't being treated fairly.

Old Broad

 

[Old Broad]

An interesting article I found that ran in USA Today about pregnant women being discriminated in the workplace.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-02-16-pregnancy-bias-usat_x.htm

Susan Kenna, 38, says her employer didn't make accommodations for her when she became pregnant with triplets. She says managers cut her pay after she needed to go on bed rest, and she says she was cut out of meetings before being put on bed rest and generally pressured to quit. She was on bed rest for one week.

Kenna, who worked as a director at Gitto/Global Corp., went into early labor on Sept. 28, 2001, and her triplets died shortly after birth. She says in a lawsuit filed last year against her employer that stress over discrimination played a role in triggering the early births.

Gitto/Global, a manufacturer of specialty compounds, filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2004 and sold its assets to S & E Specialty Polymers. Gitto/Global has been embroiled in scandal following accusations top officials created bogus customers and bilked lenders out of millions of dollars. A spokeswoman declined to comment, saying the lawsuit originated before the sale. The case was filed in August 2004 and is still pending. A trial date has not yet been set.

"I believe the stress caused my pre-term labor, and I filed a lawsuit because I didn't want my children to die in vain," says Kenna, of Sterling, Mass., who is now the mother of 2-year-old twin girls and a son who is just over 2 months old. "A lot of people at companies are getting away with this, and they have to be called on their bad behavior."

Much more at link.
Old Broad

 

[mssheila]

While I was pregnant the second time, I considered going to work (very part time) just to "get out of the house" for short periods of time. I thought it might also be good for my oldest son (who was still just a baby when I got pregnant again) to be around other children, so I entertained the idea getting a part time job and putting him into a playgroup/daycare for children under the age of 1.

When I was visibly pregnant, I went to two interviews for low-stress jobs which I felt were perfect for a pregnant woman. They were retail jobs at stores like Gap.

I got turned down for two jobs that I was more than qualified for. I had worked retail/customer service most of my working life and had good recommendations from previous employers. I felt that their reasons for turning me down were nothing more than me being pregnant. I truly felt discriminated against.

I ended up putting my son in the playgroup anyway, enjoying the 'playgroup' setting with some of the mothers that stayed with their babies, and it ended up being a good thing for both my son and I. It was like a mothers group too, which served both purposes of getting me out of the house, meeting other mothers, and introducing my son to 'socialization'.

I know that employers hesitate to hire pregnant women. They can give any reason they want to turn you down, but most people know BS when they hear it. JMO... and what happened to me.

 

[mssheila]

I found an interesting article...

http://www.lorman.com/newsletters/article.php?article_id=141&newsletter_id=25&category_id=1

An employee claiming disparate treatment under Title VII must first establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. In order to make out a case of pregnancy discrimination, an employee must initially show that:

1. the employee or his spouse was pregnant;
2. the employee was qualified for her job;
3. the employee was subjected to an adverse employment decision; and
4. there is a relationship between the pregnancy and the adverse employment decision.

If the employee establishes all four factors set out above, the employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions in order to escape liability for damages. If the employer can show a sufficient non-discriminatory reason, there is no longer a presumption of intentional discrimination. Therefore, the employee must then prove that the defendant intentionally discriminated against her. In order to show intentional discrimination, the employee must show, at least, that the legitimate reasons offered by the employer were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for intentional discrimination.

 

[mssheila]

From what I'm reading, there is no hard and fast rule about what an employer must do to meet "reasonable accomodations". I would think though, that if a doctor gave the employee a note to turn into her employer, and it said "This employee cannot lift over 5 pounds" and the employer made her lift anyway, (with the implied threat of losing her job/insurance/etc...) she would have a case.

I guess what we've mostly been arguing though, is whether she should have done the lifting, or just taken the consequence of losing her job and/or insurance. What we personally would have done is not really relevant.... this is more about what SHE did.

She says that WHILE lifting something her doctor told her not to, she went into premature labor and one twin died, and the other twin has serious medical problems. She is going to have to prove, I assume, that the lifting made her go into early labor, and the early labor caused the problems with the twins.

I think it would be hard to prove that she wouldn't have gone into labor had she not lifted the boxes. It might be a tough go for her in court. What do you think?

 

[txsvicki]

I think this woman was probably an assistant manager since she did have health insurance, was unable to cut her hours, and was denied a promotion. Retail is notorious for not giving employees enough hours as it is or even health insurance. The woman probably was responsible for moving things around or making sure new delivered stock was put away and Gap isn't exactly a huge business employing lots of employees but probably has managers and the rest part timers.

 

[curious1]

Oh, I know I am going to get in soooo much trouble, but here goes......(braces herself before firing squad. 'Oh, can I get one last cigarette please?')

If you are young, unmarried, can't affored medical care and working at the GAP why are ya having kids in the first place? She should have chosen the health of her baby over the job. There are plenty of agencies that could help her out and if she had quit and leaked this to the press she would have had people crawling out of the wood work to help her out. I just hope she has learned from this and takes the best care she can of the remaining twin.

 

[deanws]

I will only say this about the above post. I disagree wholeheartedly. When I was pregnant with my first child, I went into premature labor frequently toward the end of my pregnancy. My doctor eventually put me on light bed rest- which meant I had to quit my job. My doctor told me to stay off my feet, and I was a waitress. I was not yet married, and that was my only income. I did not have health insurance. I was living hand to mouth. I was in that situation, and I took the health of my child before everything else. I think most mothers would.

I smell a rat with this story. As many people have said, she didn't HAVE to keep the job, if her pregnancy was at risk. She could have asked for help from coworkers, who might have been more sympathetic to her than management. She could have done a lot of things other than to lift those boxes. I say, with the given information, that she was the one who caused the premature labor... I don't know how The Gap could be held liable.

ETA: Yes, it IS easy for me to say, because I did it.

Bless your heart. I am glad you did what was right for the sake of your unborn child.
:angel:

 

[curious1]

Totally off topic, but Mabel I love your line you use ....The above is my opinion only - and perhaps that of my husband.
I'll let him know when I decide :twocents:
I may have to steal that one.

 

[Mabel]

I'm glad you like it, Curious. My husband likes it too....I decided.

 

[curious1]

Good man. Hee hee hee :laugh:

 

[Bobbisangel]

Oh, I know I am going to get in soooo much trouble, but here goes......(braces herself before firing squad. 'Oh, can I get one last cigarette please?')

If you are young, unmarried, can't affored medical care and working at the GAP why are ya having kids in the first place? She should have chosen the health of her baby over the job. There are plenty of agencies that could help her out and if she had quit and leaked this to the press she would have had people crawling out of the wood work to help her out. I just hope she has learned from this and takes the best care she can of the remaining twin.

Well, we don't know that this mother was unmarried or real young. We don't know if she was pregnant when she started her job or got pregnant afterwards.

If she got pregnant after she started working at GAP and she was unmarried it seems that she made the choice to keep her babies rather then have an abortion or adopt them out. If she was unmarried maybe she made the choice to work and keep her medical as opposed to going on welfare where she would have received around $400 a month plus food stamps. With twins on the way she had to have a way to buy all of the things they would need only double. If she was married maybe she was the only one who had health insurance and her husband was on her insurance.

It would make sense to me that her doctor would have given her a note for her employer. The note probably listed the amount of weight she shouldn't be lifting...like not over 5 lbs. For whatever reason she made the choice to keep working. I would guess it was out of neccesity not igornance. I can't imagine any woman making the choice to keep working knowing it could harm her children just out of plain bull headedness.

 

[Amraann]

Precisely what I meant - it may be the law, but a lot of people don't like it.

As to how this is fair - it's not about fair. Laws aren't about fair - they're about making society work. It's to society's benefit to allow women to work, but we also expect people to be willing to reproduce. So, the law says that the business has to make accomodations. It's not fair that a business has to make accomodations to a disabled person either - but they do. It's not all that fair that you have to hold a person's job for them when they go on disability of any kind - that 5 months could have been for any disease - including many that are personal choices (liver failure from some previous overdrinking, any medical issue relating to overweight, cigarette smoking, etc.). Taxes aren't fair - you pay more or less than the value of what you get from them. Social security isn't fair. But fair isn't the main goal - the goal is to make society work - fairness is a secondary consideration.

If not for laws like this - a ton of people, myself included couldn't afford to get pregnant (or have any medical issue hit) - or when they are pregnant and something goes slightly wrong, they'd be destroyed.

In essence this translates to those that cannot plan and be responsible should be protected at the expense of the rest of us? WHY?


I agree its not about fairness.. however the statement that ton's of people could not afford children otherwise indicates to me that it is about fairness.
The flipside would be "its not fair that those people cannot afford to have children don't have them" In otherwords these laws are very fair to people who want children but maybe can't afford them.
I do not see a downside if those unable to afford to do not have children.
The stress involved in parenting can be enourmous ...couple that with financial issues? Why should everyone else suffer because those not financially able want children and without better planning have them?

If I want a corvette or a big house... No one is crying me a river that I cannot afford it. Yet a child? ... and equal expense and certainly a much more precious thing can just be had without.... say.. the same planning as buying a corvette??
IMO if I cannot afford the corvette it gets repo'd .. the child? IF the child is lucky I struggle hard to afford them.. I think we read here often enough the worst results of lack of planning.

 

[Amraann]

Well, we don't know that this mother was unmarried or real young. We don't know if she was pregnant when she started her job or got pregnant afterwards.

If she got pregnant after she started working at GAP and she was unmarried it seems that she made the choice to keep her babies rather then have an abortion or adopt them out. If she was unmarried maybe she made the choice to work and keep her medical as opposed to going on welfare where she would have received around $400 a month plus food stamps. With twins on the way she had to have a way to buy all of the things they would need only double. If she was married maybe she was the only one who had health insurance and her husband was on her insurance.

It would make sense to me that her doctor would have given her a note for her employer. The note probably listed the amount of weight she shouldn't be lifting...like not over 5 lbs. For whatever reason she made the choice to keep working. I would guess it was out of neccesity not igornance. I can't imagine any woman making the choice to keep working knowing it could harm her children just out of plain bull headedness.

We do know she was not pregnant when she first took the job as the original article state she had been employed for almost 2 years prior.

There is an alternate choice here... That is to not get pregnant when your not in a position to cope with possible problems arising from that.

 

[Megs]

We do know she was not pregnant when she first took the job as the original article state she had been employed for almost 2 years prior.

There is an alternate choice here... That is to not get pregnant when your not in a position to cope with possible problems arising from that.

While I agree that not getting pregnant is an option, getting pregnant with twins vs a single baby is not an option. Believe me, it is a big curveball when you find out that you are having 2! The reason that this woman was in a difficult situation wasn't because she was just pregnant, she was pregnant with twins. It is a high risk pregnancy. I'm not saying that she wouldn't have miscarried had she been pregnant with only one, but you can't tell people not to get pregnant just in case they might have twins. She might have been fine had she only had one baby, but we will never know.....

 

[mssheila]

Oh, I know I am going to get in soooo much trouble, but here goes......(braces herself before firing squad. 'Oh, can I get one last cigarette please?')

If you are young, unmarried, can't affored medical care and working at the GAP why are ya having kids in the first place? She should have chosen the health of her baby over the job. There are plenty of agencies that could help her out and if she had quit and leaked this to the press she would have had people crawling out of the wood work to help her out. I just hope she has learned from this and takes the best care she can of the remaining twin.

I agree with much of your post, curious1. I did precisely what you're describing above. However, in my case, my pregnancy was a big suprise.. lol. I was on the pill, but wasn't told by my Dr that antiobiotics make the pill less effective.. and sure enough, I got preggers. I wouldn't have chose that for myself at that age, but I was lucky enough to have savings in the bank when I had to quit work. But if I had everything my way, and had planned the pregnancy, it sure as heck wouldn't have happened when it did. I was engaged, but not yet married. I was a waitress, sort of a 'fun job' between real jobs, trying to get on my feet in a new state, far away from family.

It would have been MUCH easier if I had been married, had planned the pregnancy, and gotten pregnant when my life was more stable, but it all worked out pretty well for us. My husband-to-be had a good job, and after we got married, I was able to get medical insurance, etc..

 

[Details]

In essence this translates to those that cannot plan and be responsible should be protected at the expense of the rest of us? WHY?


I agree its not about fairness.. however the statement that ton's of people could not afford children otherwise indicates to me that it is about fairness.
The flipside would be "its not fair that those people cannot afford to have children don't have them" In otherwords these laws are very fair to people who want children but maybe can't afford them.
I do not see a downside if those unable to afford to do not have children.
The stress involved in parenting can be enourmous ...couple that with financial issues? Why should everyone else suffer because those not financially able want children and without better planning have them?

If I want a corvette or a big house... No one is crying me a river that I cannot afford it. Yet a child? ... and equal expense and certainly a much more precious thing can just be had without.... say.. the same planning as buying a corvette??
IMO if I cannot afford the corvette it gets repo'd .. the child? IF the child is lucky I struggle hard to afford them.. I think we read here often enough the worst results of lack of planning.

What I meant by "cannot otherwise afford to get pregnant" is not that I'm looking for support when I haven't planned well enough to have kids - it's that a pregnancy is unpredictable. It may go well, no problems, you work right up until the day you deliver - and that's what you plan for - she was well enough planned for that - she had a job, and all was fine. But you can't predict if you will have twins, a weak cervix, or any number of abnormal issues. Your child may have a defective heart, or any number of birth defects. It's just the same as any other health problem.

Your friend's employee was not irresponsible, nor was this woman necessarily in getting pregnant. There's every reason to think that you'll be able to work through in both of those jobs, and that's it. But when something goes wrong, when there's an abnormal pregnancy, it should be treated like any other disease - a sudden back problem could also limit your ability to lift for a few months; but you don't hear about irresponsible lack of planning when that employee expects their employer to absorb that cost. A case of cancer can put you out on bedrest during chemo for a few months - again, where's the upset about a lack of planning there?

How many women could afford to get pregnant if that 'planning' standard was held? It'd mean women would be given a choice - for all jobs that are incompatible with pregnancy, you either cannot work there, or you must remain childless for as long as you want the job. For all other jobs (most of them), you have to only become pregnant if you can afford not only to have a child and take whatever maternity leave is necessary, but also you must be able to afford to lose the job and take at least 4 months unpaid with no job, and the ability to have someone on hand to fetch and carry for you during bedrest.

How many people can actually afford this? Maybe at most 30% of all current mothers? I've got a great job and a supportive husband, and we couldn't afford that - I couldn't get pregnant at that standard. We've got savings, but if I had to accept that I would lose my job by getting pregnant, and would have to find a new one after birth (hopefully) - we couldn't afford that!

Both cases - your friends and this woman - the issue wasn't the pregnancy - the issue was a not standard pregnancy problem, and a business not wanting to deal with the limitations from this temporary disability. Twins is a pregnancy complication. So is anything that requires bedrest. So I don't think it's about a lack of planning in either case - it's about dealling with a medical complication in an employee's life - sure, spawned by the choice to become pregnant, just as so many other temporary disabilities are spawned by other choices we make (to overeat a little, to play sports, to smoke, etc.) - but it's just a medical problem, a temporary disability.

It may not be fair to the employer that they have to hold the job, make accomodations - but I just can't see the alternative as being a world most of us would do well in. Planning only goes so far - I don't think people should have to lose their jobs for such issues - because they got pregnant and didn't plan on having twins or being put on bedrest; because they smoked and didn't plan on needing time off to get chemo; because they were a few pounds overweight and got any one of the multitude of medical problems that are linked to your weight (that's a huge list - practically all of them); because they played a game of soccer, threw out their back, and couldn't lift boxes for a few months. I don't see a difference between pregnancy and these - other than one difference - society has an interest in making sure that pregnancy happens - we have no such interest in smoking, sports, or overeating. If pregnancy disabilities aren't to be respected, none of these others should be either. Anyone who throws their back out doing anything voluntary should not expect any accomodation at all from their employer during their temporary disability.