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."


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit