Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Bonnie Fuller: Zach Sobiech: You Were a Huge Inspiration in Your…
When A Tornado Strikes, Should Schools Evacuate?
Court Rules Against Breast-Feeding Mom
Filed under: Work Life, In The News, Breast-Feeding
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against a nursing mom who was fired for pumping her breasts during an unauthorized break.
LaNisa Allen was fired in August 2005 when she was caught pumping breast milk while she was on the clock at Totes/Isotoner, according to The Columbus Dispatch. Allen sued the company, saying that lactation was a natural consequence of pregnancy and therefore she should be protected under the state's pregnancy anti-discrimination law.
The court ruled against Allen 5-1, saying that her employer had the right to fire her for taking an unauthorized break. The court decision said that Allen should have asked to be accommodated before breaking the rules.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissented, and he wrote that the court should have answered the question of whether nursing moms are entitled to the same protection as pregnant women.
"Ohio's working mothers who endure the uncomfortable sacrifice of privacy that almost necessarily accompanies their attempt to remain on the job and nourish their children deserve to know whether Ohio's pregnancy-discrimination laws protect them," Pfeifer wrote, according to The Columbus Dispatch.
Timothy P. Reilly, attorney for Totes/Isotoner, said that the case was not about motherhood or pregnancy, but was a simple case of a worker taking unauthorized breaks.
LaNisa Allen was fired in August 2005 when she was caught pumping breast milk while she was on the clock at Totes/Isotoner, according to The Columbus Dispatch. Allen sued the company, saying that lactation was a natural consequence of pregnancy and therefore she should be protected under the state's pregnancy anti-discrimination law.
The court ruled against Allen 5-1, saying that her employer had the right to fire her for taking an unauthorized break. The court decision said that Allen should have asked to be accommodated before breaking the rules.
Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissented, and he wrote that the court should have answered the question of whether nursing moms are entitled to the same protection as pregnant women.
"Ohio's working mothers who endure the uncomfortable sacrifice of privacy that almost necessarily accompanies their attempt to remain on the job and nourish their children deserve to know whether Ohio's pregnancy-discrimination laws protect them," Pfeifer wrote, according to The Columbus Dispatch.
Timothy P. Reilly, attorney for Totes/Isotoner, said that the case was not about motherhood or pregnancy, but was a simple case of a worker taking unauthorized breaks.
"Totes has taken the position since the beginning of this case that it terminated the plaintiff (Allen) for a proper reason, and that's that she took unauthorized work breaks, regardless of her sex or condition," Reilly said.
Question: How should businesses accommodate breast-feeding moms?
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
Supreme Court Rules Against Violent Video Game Ban
Kevin Pereira talks to X-Play's Adam Sessler for his thoughts on the new Supreme Court ruling against the ban of violent video game sales to minors, what the judges said about the gaming industry and whether this fight could return to the courts.
-
Anger in Court Over Faulty Breast Implants
Booed in court during the first day of his trial - the former boss of French breast implant company PIP came face to face with hundreds of angry women. PIP's founder and chief executive Jean-Claude Mas has admitted filling the implants with an unapproved recipe made of industrial-grade silicone gel. He's on trial with four PIP executives charged with aggravated fraud, after selling the implants around the world between 2001 to 2010.
-
High Court to Decide If Genes Can Be Patented
Can human genes, or parts of them, be patented? The Supreme Court will hear a case pitting breast cancer patients and researchers against Myriad Genetics, whose patents on the 'breast cancer genes' allow them to exclusively test for risk. (April 12)
-
PIP Breast Implant Bosses in Court
Five executives, from a company that was once one of the world's leading makers of breast implants, are due to face trial in France accused of aggravated fraud
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
9-06-2009 @ 1:18PM
Elizabeth said...I think it was/is her (and every nursing mother's) responsibility to sit down with thier employer and work out an agreement... If the company policy allows so many total minutes for breaks, perhaps she can break the time up into multiple small breaks instead of or 2 large breaks. Some companies allow "cigarette" breaks every couple of hours for smokers. I know some non smokers who have successfully convinced thier bosses to allow them similar nonsmoking breaks for thier own personal use. Mostly these breaks are utilized by breastfeeding mothers. Its a matter of reading your employee handbook and talking with your manager. We also dont know the details of this case. Was this a recurring issue in which they had spoken to her many times? Or did it happen once, and once is one time too many? Can discrimination be proven. Breastfeeding itself is not illegal, or hazardous (except where common sense is lacking such feeding in a moving vehicle). However pumping, while not illegal, should be done with discretion, and with the proper support of an your employer.
Reply
9-06-2009 @ 4:05PM
jcaesq said...The reality of the situation is that the empl;oyer is paying her to work and be productive. She is not being paid to breast feed her child who she brought into the world and not the employer. Moreover, the employer provided her with a job and the money she made there certainly enabled or helped her support the child. The problem today is is that often people with children expect others to bend over backwards for them and go out of their way to accomodate them. This is not fair to the employer nor is it fair to other employees. Yes, she has a right to procriate but she does not have tyhe right to put the burden or expense of the child onto someone else. It seems today as though many people feel that companies and business exist so that they can have a job. The truth that there are jobs for people because other have the forsight and initiative to create and maintain businesses. This mother was absoutely wrong and the employer is right.