Skip to main content

Don't Forget: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act Applies to Pregnant Employees & Recently Pregnant Employees


Albin v. LVMH Moet Louis Vuitton, Inc. - US District Court for the Southern District of New York


*Note that my overview of this opinion focuses on whether an employee is protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act even when the employee is no longer pregnant or trying to become pregnant.

Facts:  Katherine Albin began work at the the Thomas Pink store in January 2009.  She had her first child in August 2011 and was on maternity leave from August through November 2011.  When Albin returned from maternity leave, she was informed that her store manager would resign at the end of December.  Albin subsequently indicated her interest in the position.  However, unlike the normal procedure of having an overlap period of a few weeks between incoming and outgoing managers, Albin did not get to talk with the HR Manager until December 27, 2011

Albin had her official interview with the HR Manager in early January 2012 and then the US President of Thomas Pink, Humbert, conducted an interview with another candidate for the position in early February 2012.  Humbert did not interview Albin until March 1 and allegedly was unprepared for the interview (the record states Humbert did not have a copy of Albin's resume and did not appear to even read it).  On March 6, Albin was informed that the other candidate was selected for the store manager position and the next day, a check arrived for the new manager.  The facts indicated that a check could not have been printed for the new manager unless the manager had been hired earlier, during the week of February 19, 2012.  As a result, Albin's interview with Humbert was apparently conducted after the position had been filled.

Albin subsequently quit three days later and sued the employer, the employer's parent company, and two senior managers for discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA").  The defendants moved to dismiss Albin's claims.

Holding:  The District Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Albin had presented sufficient evidence of discriminatory conduct by the defendants in violation of the PDA.  The Court held that the PDA and the protections the Act offers applies not just to women who are pregnant, but also to women who recently gave birth.  The Court clarified how it viewed the PDA as it applies to women who recently gave birth and noted that a pattern had developed in the Circuit to provide for PDA protection to women who recently gave birth as recently as four months from the date of birth. 

Based upon how the PDA was applied in this instance, the Court held that it was plausible that the defendants engaged in discriminatory conduct when it decided not to hire Albin for the store manager position.  Although Albin was not pregnant when the allegedly discriminatory conduct occured, the evidence presented made it possible that Albin was discriminated against during the months she returned to work immediately following the birth of her child, in violation of the PDA.

Judgment:  The District Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and held that sufficient evidence had been presented to allow Albin to proceed on her pregnancy discrimination claim on the grounds that she was not hired for the store manager position as a result of her recent pregnancy, in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The Takeaway:  This should be a stark reminder to employers to remember that just because an employee is no longer pregnant, that does not mean that PDA liability does not attach.  Employers need to be careful, even in situations that do not involve pregnant employees, and ensure that proper steps are taken and policies are followed to avoid giving off the appearance of discriminatory conduct.

As we have seen in recent months, the EEOC has made pregnancy discrimination claims a major priority.  I would not expect court's to back down either and give employers a free pass when apparent discriminatory conduct is alleged by a pregnant or recently pregnant employee.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Oetken

Date:  July 8, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.employmentandlaborinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/328/2014/07/7.10.14.Albin-v.-Louis-Vuitton.pdf


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more