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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT