HL fires employee who took 3 weeks off to give birth

[mominatrix]

family friendly, indeed


also, a shout out to ESF with the element about arbitration agreements.

---------------------------------------------


TUESDAY, JUL 29, 2014 12:52 PM PDT

Hobby Lobby alleged to have fired pregnant employee who requested time off to give birth

A former Hobby Lobby employee says the "pro-family" company discriminated against her because of her pregnancy

KATIE MCDONOUGH Follow

Share 2K 474 98




Hobby Lobby alleged to have fired pregnant employee who requested time off to give birth



David and Barbara Green, co-founders of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. (Credit: AP/Hobby Lobby/Tony Gutierrez)



Hobby Lobby has always contended that even though it won’t provide employees with comprehensive contraceptive coverage, it really is a very nice place to work because it goes the extra mile for employees. But according to a report from RH Reality Check, the company may have fired a pregnant employee after she requested time off to give birth to her child, even after reassuring her that her job would be waiting for her when she was ready to come back.



“They didn’t even want me to come back after having my baby, to provide for it,” Felicia Allen told reporter Sofia Resinick. Allen started as a part-time cashier at Hobby Lobby in 2010, and found out she was pregnant not too long after she started. She said she asked her supervisor if her job would be safe even though she hadn’t been working at the chain long enough to qualify for the Family Medical Leave Act.



“I asked her would I lose my job due to me being four months and only having five months before I have my child. She told me ‘no,’” Allen told RH Reality Check. “I felt like everything was OK. I had talked to my boss, and she let me know that everything would be OK. I would still have my job.”



When Allen was ready to have her child, she was fired. She said she tried to come back three weeks after she gave birth, but wasn’t rehired like she was assured she would be. “I was like, I can’t get fired,” Allen said. “She can’t terminate me because I have to go have my child. I started asking everybody on the job, ‘Can they do this?’ And even the assistant manager who had just got hired [said,] ‘No, that’s not right.’”



In addition to being misled about being able to return to her job, Allen said Hobby Lobby fought her on unemployment benefits. According to Allen, the company said she could have taken personal leave but opted not to. Allen eventually won her claim, but she left her experience at Hobby Lobby feeling that the company had discriminated against her because of her pregnancy.



And, as Resinick points out, Allen couldn’t file a legal challenge after all of this because, like most Hobby Lobby employees, she had signed a piece of paper giving away her right to sue. Instead, most if not all matters are settled outside of court in arbitration:



In a phone interview, [Alex Colvin, a professor of conflict resolution at Cornell University and an expert on employment arbitration] told RH Reality Check that corporations generally institute an arbitration-only policy out of fear of widespread lawsuits and to keep information on disputes out of the public eye.



“I think it’s an interesting confluence here with Hobby Lobby being in the news with that big case, but if that were an employment case where an employee wanted to make a claim, we would never see that case at the Supreme Court because it would be stayed in arbitration,” Colvin said. “So, ironically, Hobby Lobby gets to go to the Supreme Court because they want to challenge this, but their own employees don’t get to go to court.”



According to federal court records, over the years, several employees have filed job discrimination lawsuits against Hobby Lobby claiming age, disability, race, and sex discrimination—which is common for many corporations. But due to the fact that Hobby Lobby avoids lawsuits and the fact that little information about arbitration cases is made public, it’s difficult to evaluate the company’s treatment of its employees beyond its assurances that they are paid above minimum wage and well taken care of.



In a promotional video on the Hobby Lobby website, company president Steve Green explained how he doesn’t leave his pro-family Christian principles at the door when it comes to running his company. “Well, the beliefs that we’ve had — that we have grown up with all our lives — are convictions that we have that we live by personally,” he said. “And as we have ran our business we feel the obligation or the desire that we want to use those same principles within our business. It would not be consistent for us to live one way at home and then accept a different way at work. That would be inconsistent with our faith.”



Hobby Lobby has not yet responded to a request for comment, but one wonders how the Green family feels this story of alleged discrimination against a new mother reflects on those principles.



Katie McDonough is Salon's politics writer, focusing on gender, sexuality and reproductive justice. Follow her on Twitter @kmcdonovgh or email her at [e-mail].



www.salon.com/2014/07/29/hobby_lobby_alleged_to_have_fired_a_pregnant_employee_who_requested_time_off_to_give_birth/

[UMaineTeach]

she must have been a single mom. violates their sincerely held beliefs that children are only for male-female married couples. she had to go.

[ESF]

AMERICA!!!11111!11!!!! FUCK YEAH!!11!1!!!!!!    

[bugandbibs]

Duh, being family friendly means no working moms.

Sometimes I wish we had a HL here just so I could protest.

[Ohhmm(bligo)]

PRO LIFE

[heyjude]

But what if she was carrying Jesus 2.0??!?!?!!

[penguingrrl]

I'm wholly unsurprised. Yes, let's deny our employees the means by which to prevent a pregnancy then fire them for getting pregnant. Fucking assholes.

[josieposy]

So why was she good enough to hire pregnant, but not good enough to keep on?

ETA: Nevermind. I had the timeline wrong.

[overture]

This is why Christian companies shouldn't have to hire people who might possibly get pregnant. It might violate their beliefs.

[rugbywife]

Well obviously they couldn't have her back, a good Christian woman should be at home raising the kid.

[jeaniebueller]

Fucking ridiculous

[pretzel]

assholes

[anonymous]

Not surprised. But I am dumbfounded

[miesl]

I'm so cynical at this point, even if it weren't for the arbitration clause, I'm sure that HL would argue it was against their sincerely held beliefs to keep her employed - that the womenfolk should be at home with the kids doing crafts, not selling them.

[stephm0188]

Not surprised. I feel like this is more a retail thing than just Hobby Lobby. They're still assholes though.

[ttt]

Jul 30, 2014 22:21:06 GMT -5 stephm0188 said:

Not surprised. I feel like this is more a retail thing than just Hobby Lobby. They're still assholes though.

It's definitely a retail thing. But it's especially ironic and assholeish in light of their vehement opposition to birth control.

[penguingrrl]

Jul 30, 2014 22:21:06 GMT -5 stephm0188 said:

Not surprised. I feel like this is more a retail thing than just Hobby Lobby. They're still assholes though.

Oh, it's definitely a retail thing. That doesn't make it less awful, but plenty of stores would find a way to do the same and sweep it under the rug. But seeing as how they're the only retailer saying that contraception ones against the corporation's personal morals it's far worse coming from them. I mean, if they really want to say they're family friendly they should be paying her f/t wages for 3+ months after delivery and welcoming her back and offering a place to pump should she need it, not firing her for taking time off to give birth.

[lys]

2010???
I think there is more to the story than what is being reported.

[bunnysmom]

And, as Resinick points out, Allen couldn’t file a legal challenge after all of this because, like most Hobby Lobby employees, she had signed a piece of paper giving away her right to sue. Instead, most if not all matters are settled outside of court in arbitration:




I'm very surprised to read this, so please someone explain it to me like I'm five. Is this a particular arrangement of HL? do other retail firms have this policy as well? and, how is this even legal? 

I'd heard of signing an agreement giving away your right to sue, but after some sort of arbitration. I didn't know about signing this upon being hired...

[sushi]

Jul 31, 2014 8:10:01 GMT -5 bunnysmom said:

And, as Resinick points out, Allen couldn’t file a legal challenge after all of this because, like most Hobby Lobby employees, she had signed a piece of paper giving away her right to sue. Instead, most if not all matters are settled outside of court in arbitration:




I'm very surprised to read this, so please someone explain it to me like I'm five. Is this a particular arrangement of HL? do other retail firms have this policy as well? and, how is this even legal? 

I'd heard of signing an agreement giving away your right to sue, but after some sort of arbitration. I didn't know about signing this upon being hired...

ESF
It's her favorite topic

[NewOrleans]

Jul 31, 2014 8:10:01 GMT -5 bunnysmom said:

And, as Resinick points out, Allen couldn’t file a legal challenge after all of this because, like most Hobby Lobby employees, she had signed a piece of paper giving away her right to sue. Instead, most if not all matters are settled outside of court in arbitration:




I'm very surprised to read this, so please someone explain it to me like I'm five. Is this a particular arrangement of HL? do other retail firms have this policy as well? and, how is this even legal? 

I'd heard of signing an agreement giving away your right to sue, but after some sort of arbitration. I didn't know about signing this upon being hired...

This topic is ESF's special topic.  But yes, arbitration clauses are very common upon employment and I think companies even started/tried to get them just for buying their products.

watch the documentary Hot Coffee.

[bunnysmom]

Jul 31, 2014 8:18:33 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jul 31, 2014 8:10:01 GMT -5 bunnysmom said:

And, as Resinick points out, Allen couldn’t file a legal challenge after all of this because, like most Hobby Lobby employees, she had signed a piece of paper giving away her right to sue. Instead, most if not all matters are settled outside of court in arbitration:




I'm very surprised to read this, so please someone explain it to me like I'm five. Is this a particular arrangement of HL? do other retail firms have this policy as well? and, how is this even legal? 

I'd heard of signing an agreement giving away your right to sue, but after some sort of arbitration. I didn't know about signing this upon being hired...

This topic is ESF's special topic.  But yes, arbitration clauses are very common upon employment and I think companies even started/tried to get them just for buying their products.

watch the documentary Hot Coffee.

Oh, thanks for clarifying. I'm not American, so I didn't know about this and I was surprised to read it. 

I'm sure there are geniuses out there that suggest that people who don't agree with this clauses should just find another job. 

[heyjude]

ESF, if she had been covered by FMLA, and she was fired, would the arbitration agreement still stand?

[mominatrix]

Jul 31, 2014 7:58:32 GMT -5 lys said:

2010???
I think there is more to the story than what is being reported.

the fact this was back in 2010 doesn't change anything.

In reality, she might just be at the point of filing in federal court. 

In order to sue a company for pregnancy discrimination (even without an arbitration clause) you have to file with EEOC or its state/local analogue in your specific area.  Before you can even file instate or federal court, you have to jump through several hoops there. Getting to that stage can take years. There isn't a statute of limitations issue, because that's fulfilled by filing with the agency.

If there are issues with an arbitration agreement, that could delay the process even more. 

Having worked at two different agencies of this type, three years in process is unremarkable. 

[ttt]

Jul 31, 2014 7:58:32 GMT -5 lys said:

2010???
I think there is more to the story than what is being reported.

For example....what? 

[mominatrix]

Jul 31, 2014 8:27:05 GMT -5 heyjude said:

ESF, if she had been covered by FMLA, and she was fired, would the arbitration agreement still stand?

not ESF...

but IMHO, the best way around the arbitration agreement is to file with EEOC (or a state agency) which you're required to do under Title VII anyway. Instead of removing, keep it at the agency.

The agency has a separate legal stake in the issue - - it's not just plaintiff vs. defendant is a private right of action. EEOC or the state agency is a law enforcement agency, doing their statutory duty. "Plaintiff" had no ability to sign away the state's right to investigate claims of discrimination. 

We used to use this reasoning with success; there's some pretty decent case law on the issue. Also, EEOC can (and will) bring cases in federal court in it's own name.

...depending on the agency, damages will be in the same general range as in court, and attorneys' fees are available.

[ESF]

Jul 31, 2014 8:27:05 GMT -5 heyjude said:

ESF, if she had been covered by FMLA, and she was fired, would the arbitration agreement still stand?

Yes, most likely.  They are increasingly impossible to void.

[ESF]

Jul 31, 2014 9:48:49 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Jul 31, 2014 8:27:05 GMT -5 heyjude said:

ESF, if she had been covered by FMLA, and she was fired, would the arbitration agreement still stand?

not ESF...

but IMHO, the best way around the arbitration agreement is to file with EEOC (or a state agency) which you're required to do under Title VII anyway. Instead of removing, keep it at the agency.

The agency has a separate legal stake in the issue - - it's not just plaintiff vs. defendant is a private right of action. EEOC or the state agency is a law enforcement agency, doing their statutory duty. "Plaintiff" had no ability to sign away the state's right to investigate claims of discrimination. 

We used to use this reasoning with success; there's some pretty decent case law on the issue. Also, EEOC can (and will) bring cases in federal court in it's own name.

...depending on the agency, damages will be in the same general range as in court, and attorneys' fees are available.

Yes, my understanding is that the law is still unchanged on that -- an arbitration agreement can't waive a federal agency's right to sue.  Arbitration agreements in employment are still one area where the situation isn't *as* terrible as it could be, largely because it's well-settled that employers need to make all federal remedies available to you in arbitration as you'd get in court (with the exception of a company-wide injunction).  Since most employment laws are federal, it's hard to fuck people over entirely.  

Increasingly though, courts are holding that companies don't need to make state law remedial schemes available in arbitration.  Which means arbitration agreements could be used as a way around state laws increasing minimum wages and other wage and hour protections that exceed the FLSA, as well as get around state laws prohibiting discrimination against gay people, since no federal law yet exists.  

California, like many states, has a better state FMLA than the feds have, thanks to a Ninth Circuit ruling last year that says that companies do not have to make state law remedies available in arbitration, that law has no teeth anymore.

[jeaniebueller]

Also, can we talk about the absurdity that is this employee only needing three weeks off for birthing a child. Fuck you HL.