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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT