About 2 weeks ago I was asked to fire another person in our office and truth be told I believe it was because she was pregnant, they talked with me several times after they learned of her pregnancy and asked if she was doing her job ect ect ect.. even gave her a raise.. then 1 week later they told me to fire her. This frightens me because I recently found out I was pregnant and I feel they may be trying to push me out as well.

What can I do to help the girl they made me fire, and what can I do if they do the same to me?

There isn't really anything you can do for her. You don't know why they let her go. If you are let go without reason or for a sketchy reason, you can file a claim for pregnancy discrimination. Letting one person who happened to be pregnant go does not necessarily mean they intend to fire everyone who is pregnant.

There isn't really anything you can do for her. You don't know why they let her go. If you are let go without reason or for a sketchy reason, you can file a claim for pregnancy discrimination. Letting one person who happened to be pregnant go does not necessarily mean they intend to fire everyone who is pregnant.

Respectfully ElleMD I think the OP has reason to believe that the girl was fired due to the pregnancy as she says, "they talked with me several times after they learned of her pregnancy and asked if she was doing her job ect ect ect.. even gave her a raise.. then 1 week later they told me to fire her". At best that sounds fishy to me. Diaz if the girl you were told to fire files a discrimination suit you will be compelled to be honest with the investigator and disclose this information to them. Most likely they will need more detailed information than what you have given here to the substantiate allegation.

As for your own situation I would suggest that you start keeping very detailed notes as to any differences in the way your superiors act toward you perhaps in a journal or log. Just in case "they" decide you all of a sudden need to be fired once you disclose your pregnency as well. BTW CONGRTULATIONS and best of luck to you.

I know the OP thinks the pregnancy is the reason but the asking about performance, then firing someone who was just given a raise leads me to believe there may be a lot more to the story than the OP knows. It could be discrimination but it could just as easily be coincidence and bad timing.

I know the OP thinks the pregnancy is the reason but the asking about performance, then firing someone who was just given a raise leads me to believe there may be a lot more to the story than the OP knows. It could be discrimination but it could just as easily be coincidence and bad timing.

Agreed :) .... Or the story may be painfully obvious to the OP.

I know the OP thinks the pregnancy is the reason but the asking about performance, then firing someone who was just given a raise leads me to believe there may be a lot more to the story than the OP knows. It could be discrimination but it could just as easily be coincidence and bad timing.
Which is why the courts have discovery motions,and depositions it could very well be pregnancy discrimination,or and end run around the FMLA. Both of which are a no-no.
I highly suggest you talk to an attorney in your state,and have a list of any other terminated pregnant women. If it walks likes a duck,and quakes like a duck hey.
JoeC

You said they asked you about the pregnant girl's performance on the job - what did you tell them? Do you believe her performance was fine? What reason did they give you to fire her? Was she ever absent from her job because of her pregnancy?

Hey Patty, Love the Flag Day quote. It's a shame it was not claimed by the author.

You said they asked you about the pregnant girl's performance on the job - what did you tell them? Do you believe her performance was fine? What reason did they give you to fire her? Was she ever absent from her job because of her pregnancy?

She was doing a great job, and thats why I suggested they give her a raise. I was her direct manager, but like I said one week later they called me in and said I had to fire her, no reason but when asked if it had anything to do with her being pregnant I recieved the look of death. I know that is why they terminated her. No she hadnt takin any addiitonal time off.

They know Im pregnant and they act much differently tword me now.

Then I would speak with an employment attorney in your area who specializes in employment discrimination.

Agree, contact an employment attorney & also do as another poster suggested & keep a record of any differences in treatment you receive by your superiors since you became pregnant.

Hey Patty, Love the Flag Day quote. It's a shame it was not claimed by the author.

Hey, don't be giving Patty credit for a Flag Day quote I picked out & posted. :D Yea, it said author unknown. Have a great day. Betty

OHhh Betty I am sorry :p .... I would claim I didn't have my glasses on but I don't wear em' for up close just the near sightedness. Okay maybe it's maybe finger lock, yeah right a likely excuse. No now I gotta come clean and confess it seems to be more like vapor lock of my brain cells :) good saying all the same.....
Have a good day

BTDT

Why did you fire someone who you didn't think deserved to be fired and who you believed was being fired in violation of a federal law?

So, now the company knows that you are pregnant. If the company fires you, what "facts" are you going to present to support a claim that you were fired because of your pregnancy? I fired a employee even though I didn't have a valid reason to fire her. I followed the instructions of management, even while believing that the employee was being fired simply because she was pregnant. Therefore, I think I was fired because I am pregnant!???

Why did you fire someone who you didn't think deserved to be fired and who you believed was being fired in violation of a federal law?


She didn't fire her the other manager ordered the firing.
JoeC

The poster indicates that she fired the employee. The firing may not have been at her instigation, but it appears that she told the employee that she was fired. The poster could have told management that she disagreed with their decision to fire the employee and that she had no reasons to fire the employee, but if they had reasons to fire her, they should do the firing. I suspect the "record" will show that the poster fired the employee and there is nothing to support the poster's claim that management told her do the firing.

This is from the original:
About 2 weeks ago I was asked to fire another person in our office and truth be told I believe it was because she was pregnant, they talked with me several times after they learned of her pregnancy and asked if she was doing her job ect ect ect.. even gave her a raise.. then 1 week later they told me to fire her.
Reply
The poster could have told management that she disagreed with their decision to fire the employee and that she had no reasons to fire the employee, but if they had reasons to fire her, they should do the firing.
That has nothing to with it mitousmom she did not make the call.
They did the firing,the O.P can not just disregard what she is told by her superiors any more than anyone else. Otherwise she would have been caned along with her. Don't be ridiculous. They said fire her they did not tell her why,depositions will bear out why.
JoeC

And if she'd been fired for refusing to participate in what she believed was an illegal termination, she'd have legal recourse for it.

However, now what we have is a pregnant employee who fired someone while believing that the person she was firing was BEING fired for being pregnant. She may have done it unwillingly and under someone else's orders, but she did it.

If I were the EEOC investigator who took our poster's hypothetical claim for illegal termination, the first question I'd want answered would be why she went along with the first one but is reporting it when she herself is affected.

They did the firing,the O.P can not just disregard what she is told by her superiors any more than anyone else. Otherwise she would have been caned along with her. Don't be ridiculous. They said fire her they did not tell her why, depositions will bear out why.
JoeC

Of course subordinates can disagree with their superiors, and it's been my personal experience and my observation that employees do so regularly. The more successful know how to present their disagreement in a postive and non-challenging manner and usually can present an alternative approach. In the final analysis, however, a supervisor can give a direct order for an employee to do something, and fire the employee if s/he doesn't do it.

However, the excuse that I knowingly did something I thought was illegal because I was told to do so, and feared losing my job or not being viewed as a team player if I didn't, is not going to get you very far in the legal system.

O.P this is why you need an attorney this is the hogwash the EEOC likes so they can rubber stamp it in favor of the employer,then move along to next case to rubber stamp.
If you were terminated for refusing to do what your boss told you,the same posters,and more than likely the EEOC would tell you,"at-will" they don't need a reason to fire you.
All though people argue with bosses all the time in the end they do what they are told.
My answer to that question would be "I suspected but had no proof, if you as trained investigator for the EEOC can not prove it how am I as a mid level manager supposed too".
If you were fired for arguing with your boss,because you felt the real reason for the termination was the pregnancy. In theory you would be covered under the public policy exception. You would then have to prove the employee was terminated for being pregnant,and that you were terminated for upholding public policy.
So instead of one mountain to climb,you would then have two with no more evidence than you already have.
O.P suspected the reason,and O.P had proof of reason are not the same.
The O.P's boss did not say "fire the women because she is pregnant",if that was the case then the O.P would be on solid ground for a refusal.
The manger told her to terminate the employee with no explanation to the O.P as the reason why. The O.P can speculate to the reason,but in the end has no proof.
JoeC

The boss came in to talk to me and specifically told me he gets rid of problems such as the previous employee who was pregnant, I asked him point blank so you did fire her because of her pregnancy and his response was "damn straight". Now I know what I have to do. I resigned my position, called a lawyer and contacted the girl. He was wrong for this and he also expressed prior to my resignation that if my pregnancy was going to interrupt that I should consider taking my leave now... he is definatley more of an idiot that I first thought!

One quick question. How many employees, total, in your organization?

The boss came in to talk to me and specifically told me he gets rid of problems such as the previous employee who was pregnant, I asked him point blank so you did fire her because of her pregnancy and his response was "damn straight". Now I know what I have to do. I resigned my position, called a lawyer and contacted the girl. He was wrong for this and he also expressed prior to my resignation that if my pregnancy was going to interrupt that I should consider taking my leave now... he is definatley more of an idiot that I first thought!
Now your talking! I don't think you should have quit . Unless your attorney advised you too.
JoeC

Was there a witness to your conversation? While I don't think any of this matters if there was no witness, your boss asked you if your pregnancy was going to interrupt, I assume, your ability to do your job. If so, you should take your leave now. (Does your employer provide leave?) And, your response was to resign, suggesting that it was. Under the EEO laws, pregnancy is not given any special status. It must be treated as any other short term disability. How does your employer handle short term disabilities?

Was there a witness to your conversation? While I don't think any of this matters if there was no witness, your boss asked you if your pregnancy was going to interrupt, I assume, your ability to do your job. If so, you should take your leave now. (Does your employer provide leave?) And, your response was to resign, suggesting that it was. Under the EEO laws, pregnancy is not given any special status. It must be treated as any other short term disability. How does your employer handle short term disabilities?
Wrong:
42 U.S.C § 2000e.(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e–2 (h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.
It does not matter anyway The EEOC presents a host of problems that have little or no bearing on California's employment laws.
JoeC

Pregnancy is considered a short term disability. Therefore, the provision in T7 that states "women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work . . ." translates into pregnant women must be treated the same as other employees with short term disabilities.

I'm not an expert on California EEO law, but it's my understanding the except for special leave provisions, it requires that employers treat pregnant employees as it would other disabled employees.

As has been stated many times before, the Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that pregnant woman must be treated exactly the same as if she were not pregnant. Thus, while she cannot be discriminated against, she also gets no special privileges.

Thus, pregnancy is "given no special status".

I still want to know how large the employer is in terms of employees. It makes a difference whether she is best off talking to the EEOC, the DFEH, both, or neither.

No what it means is if you discriminate against a pregnant women it is gender discrimination to do so.
I understand what the second paragraph reads mitousmom your ignoring the first.
The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes,

In other words pregnancy discrimination equates to gender discrimination with in §703. Refusing to hire or fire a women because she is pregnant violates §703 ,and therefore is gender discrimination. No other physical condition appears any where else in 42 U.S.C.
The argument your making is why Congress passed the P.D.A in 1978,one of the few times in history where congress slapped the Supreme court for their reading of §703 in General Electric v Gilbert (S.Court 1976)
A female employee is pregnant ,and I fire her for being pregnant,guess what,I violated Tittle VII. under §703.as well as § 2000e.(k)
Why? Because firing a women for being pregnant is gender discrimination.
The second clause you seem to be stuck on,the courts have noted as only illustrative of and not an exhausting the reach of the first.
462 U.S. 669 The meaning of the first clause is not limited by the specific language in the second clause, which explains the application of the general principle to women employees.
So to say pregnancy is given no special status is not the way the courts are viewing it. Not to mention the fact that it violates the F.M.L.A,(assuming the employer meets the prerequisites).
This really does not have a whole lot of bearing since there are other better theory's of law that attorneys have in California. The attorney could file violation of public policy,or violation of covenant of good faith,and fair dealing. Both of which recognize a common law remedy of wrongful discharge,and agency intervention is not required. Under either theory,any adverse treatment gives rise to a lawsuit. California is generally regarded as the pioneer state when it comes to bad faith litigation.
JoeC

Pregnancy is considered a short term disability. .

No your reading it wrong,thats no where in 42 U.S.C
JoeC

JoeC,

You need to argue your case and your interpretation of Title VII to EEOC and the Courts, not to me. EEOC provides a good discussion on pregnancy discrimination on its website, www.eeoc.gov. DFEH also has information on pregnancy discrimination on its website, www.dfeh.ca.gov. There are numerous court cases that illustrate the federal courts' rulings on pregnancy discrimination.

Further, I'm not sure why you are discussing hiring or firing as it relates to the OP. I assume she wasn't pregnant when she was hired and, while pregnant she wasn't fired. She quit.

I don't have to argue with the EEOC their saying the same thing I am. You need to read it. Your only getting it half right,"Pregnancy is considered a short term disability".Yes thats true as far as (medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs Under § 2000e.(k)) ,however you are leaving out.
That terminating a pregnant women for being pregnant equals gender discrimination. The EEOC the courts, are very clear on this. Its the keystone of the P.D.A.

An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers. Cut from EEOC site.


Now study the following in order:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=429&invol=125

42 U.S.C § 2000e.(k) (reversing Gilbert)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=462&invol=669
(see footnote 14)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/479/272.html (Court clarifying Upholding Cal. Gov't Code Ann. 12900 )

See Employment discrimination law & practice 2nd edition Elizabeth J Norman § 2.31 (for further clarification) as well as West's 42 U.S.C.A § 2000e.(k),(which can be accessed at your local law library).

48 AMJUR POF 2d 183 §6.Bad faith wrongful discharge—The California rule

24 Causes of Action 2d 227 (2006)§ 32. (Discrimination against plaintiff)
(In a number of jurisdictions, the plaintiff may support a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy on the basis of the employer's discriminatory conduct. Many of the cases involve claims of discrimination on the basis of sex.......In some jurisdictions, the existence of a statutory remedy for employment discrimination will preclude a common-law wrongful termination claim.{California is not one of them})

I'm not talking to the O.P I'm talking to you because you are putting the P.D.A in a very limited context,and ignoring the 1st paragraph completely.
Also the O.P is contacting the original fired pregnant employee,now why the O.P quit I have no idea.
If the only information you are getting is from the EEOC website your not getting a whole lot. All though I do like the EEOC website is far from an exclusive source of information.
Under pregnancy I am surprised it covers so little, I don't know what the H.R managers, administrators,and clerks are using,but there software has to cover more than what the EEOC site has. C.B.G already gave the short answer,she worked in H.R. It's not much different than my answer,other than
(Thus, pregnancy is "given no special status".) Which I disagree with,but its such insignificant point,I don't see any reason to talk about it.
Anyway mitousmom study the above articles and cases,you will get a better understanding of the P.D.A. As well as Ca. law which is important,since most states on the West coast follow,and Southwest states follow in some form. The EEOC website leaves out to many variables.
JoeC

You do realize that mitousmom used to enforce the PDA for a living right? Just checking.

You do realize that mitousmom used to enforce the PDA for a living right? Just checking.
No I am not aware of that,you are aware her public profile makes no such claim? You are aware that maybe she wants that information confidential? You are aware she is only half right? You are aware that jury's enforce the P.D.A as well? You are aware that the information I provided was written by attorneys,and judges? You are aware that they enforce the P.D.A as well? You are aware the Supreme court trumps mitousmom? You are aware that if she is only understanding half the code she is only enforcing half the orders she should? You are aware that if she works for the EEOC it only buttresses my argument to seek an attorney before fileing an EEOC complaint? Just checking.
JoeC

If she wants it removed, she needs only to ask.

Regardless, I'm going to take her advice on such matters way before that of someone who just creatively cuts and pastes and has a chip on his shoulder against anyone who dares disagree with him or isn't willing to state that the employee is always right.

Ha Ha HAA!...I guarantee you if you got fired for being pregnant you would be taking my advice. If you didn't you would have wished you did. Yes I'm for the employee I make no claim to the contrary. When your older you will understand why.
The only reason I have to cut,and paste is because of posters like you that demand it. If your ilk didn't make that demand I would be more than happy to be relived of that obligation that does not effect you,and other so called "professionals". Until I am told otherwise,your just going to be stuck with the nagging facts that maybe your wrong,and the law does not back up what you claim.
You cant have it both ways,you cant say where on earth are you getting that? Then complain about it when it's done. Any way whats wrong with quoting sources you afraid you might learn something? Those titles I listed are very good,and there are no conflict of interests since the information is available free at most law library's without haveing to be purchased. I know they are good because I read them.
I suggest you do the same before you shoot off your mouth. If you want to believe that pregnancy discrimination does not equate to gender discrimination,even if the facts don't bear that out. I'm not going to stop you.
If you get fired for being pregnant you better think again. Anyway who's got the chip on their shoulder?,this exchange was reasonably civil before you showed up.
Your the one that showed up throwing someone elses credentials around,and insulting people.
JoeC

JoeC,

Quite frankly, I'm not sure I understand what you are ranting and raving about. As I've said before this is not a contest to see who knows more about the EEO laws and their application. The reader doesn't have to accept what I say or you say. I've provided links to what EEOC and DFEH have to say about pregnancy discrimination. Individuals in CA who want to proceed under Title VII have to file a charge with one of those two agencies, so initially they need to know how those agencies view pregnancy discrimination. While you might not think much of either agency, they are the only game in town.

You don't enhance your credibility by insulting responders. And, please don't waste your time and clutter up the boards trying to educate me on the EEO laws. That's not the purpose of the boards and I have access to experts in the field whose knowledge, expertise and opinion I respect.

All right, I've had it.

Joe, no one has said or is saying that pregnancy discrimination is not a form of gender discrimination. We all know that and no one is disagreeing.

However, pregnancy in and of itself does not confer any special privileges on the employee. The employer is not required to accomodate pregnancy to any degree further than it would any other short term medical condition. They do not need to reduce job functions; approve poor performance; allow lates, tardies or absences outside of might be included FMLA or in any other way grant the pregnant employee any violations of company policy beyond what would be granted to any other employee.

THAT is what is being said here. If you believe otherwise you are mistaken.

Since the poster does not appear to be coming back I'm ending this right here. I have had it beyond my limit.