ILNews

Woman can't prove pregnancy discrimination

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for a stone company after finding a woman couldn't prove the company knew she was pregnant when it decided to relocate her to another office.

In Angela N. LaFary v. Rogers Group Inc., No. 09-1139, Angela LaFary appealed summary judgment granted for her former employer, Rogers Group, on her claims of sex discrimination and retaliation. LaFary alleged the company decided to move her from a Martinsville office to a Bloomington office after it found out she was pregnant and then fired her for taking more than six months of leave due to complications with her pregnancy. She viewed the move as a demotion, although it included a raise and the company saw it as a promotion.

LaFary was hired by RGI in 1996 and worked in the Martinsville office in an administrative position, with some sales support. In 2004, she married an independent contractor who performed trucking jobs for the Martinsville location. She learned March 15, 2004, she was pregnant. On March 25, her supervisor consulted with other employees about relocating LaFary. In April, her supervisor informed her she would be moving to the Bloomington office because they needed administrative support and there appeared to be a conflict of interest arising from her marriage. She was transferred to Bloomington, to which she objected; however, she was there only two months when complications arose in her pregnancy. At the time of her move, her supervisor knew she was pregnant.

There was a dispute as to when her FMLA and short-term disability leave ended, and LaFary was fired in January 2005 based on its leave policy. She wasn't able to apply for another job because of lack of business.

The Circuit judges noted it was a close question whether LaFary's stint in Bloomington provided enough evidence to show the move was adverse, but didn't decide the issue because LaFary couldn't prove her supervisor knew she was pregnant when the transfer was proposed.

LaFary claimed her supervisor knew "shortly" after she found out, but there wasn't any evidence designated to support that claim or define what "shortly" means, wrote Judge Diane P. Wood. The Circuit Court affirmed summary judgment for RGI on LaFary's claim that the transfer was motivated by sex or pregnancy discrimination.

Her evidence also fell short on raising a genuine issue of fact on whether her termination and the decision to not rehire LaFary violated Title VII's prohibitions against pregnancy discrimination and retaliation.

"First, it does not show that RGI violated its own policy by counting FMLA and short-term disability leave concurrently," wrote Judge Wood. "Moreover, LaFary's evidence does not establish that a similarly situated person outside her protected class was treated more favorably."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Affordable Loan Offer (ericloanfinance@hotmail.com) NEED A LOAN?Sometime i really wanna help those in a financial problems.i was wondering why some people talks about inability to get a loan from a bank/company. have you guys ever try Eric Benson lending service.it cost dollars to loan from their company. my aunty from USA,just got a home loan from Eric Benson Lending banking card service.and they gave her a loan of 8,000,000 USD. they give out loan from 100,000 USD - 100,000,000 USD. try it yourself and testimony. have a great day as you try.Kiss & Hug. Contact E-mail: ericloanfinance@hotmail.com

  2. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  3. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  4. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

  5. State's rights, civil rights and human rights are all in jeopardy with Trump in the WH and Sessions running Justice.

ADVERTISEMENT