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.
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.
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.
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