Hot on HuffPost Parents:
Louise Pennington: Teenage Pregnancy, Patriarchal Hypocrisy and…
'Rules Of Engagement' 100th Episode Series Finale
A New Baby After Taking a New Job? That Could be a Problem in Ohio
Filed under: In The News, Weird But True
In Ohio, your maternity leave might be permanent. Credit: Getty Images
In Ohio, anyway.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week that companies can fire relatively new employees who take time off for pregnancy.
Justices ruled 5-1 that new employees risk getting fired when they take extended leaves for any reason. It's not discriminating against women to include pregnancy leaves, they decided.
The case came before the court because nurse Tiffany McFee was fired from her job in Pataskala, a town of 10,000 located 22 miles east of Columbus. The Pataskala Oaks Care Center fired her because she took pregnancy leave eight months after being hired. Nursing home policy requires employees to be on the job a year before taking an extended leave.
The Columbus Dispatch reports justices ruled that as long as company policies apply to everyone and don't make distinctions between extended leaves for pregnancy and other medical purposes, employers are within their rights to give pregnant women the boot.
New moms are not faring well with Ohio's high court.
Share
Just last August, the Dispatch reports, justices ruled employers can fire lactating employees who take unauthorized work breaks to express their breast milk.
Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, tells the Dispatch both rulings punish working women for having children. (NARAL, formerly the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League, is now no longer considered an official acronym)
"This is appalling," Copeland tells the newspaper. "We should be having policies in place that allow people to have children and not lose their jobs because they choose to have a child. This illustrates a major hole in Ohio law. There is no protection for women in this type of situation."
While many businesses are required to accommodate pregnant workers under the federal Family Medical Leave Act, small businesses with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from the federal law.
There's a good reason for that, Tom Tarpy, a Columbus lawyer who represents employers, tells the Dispatch. Extended leaves can cripple small businesses, he says.
"Whether or not a person's unexpected leave is due to pregnancy or a heart condition or a broken leg, those circumstances affect small businesses very differently when you have one-fifth of your work force out on leave," Tarpy tells the newspaper.
Justice Robert R. Cupp, writing for the majority, said the nursing home's policy was clear and objective.
"Pataskala Oaks' length-of-service requirements treat all employees the same," Cupp writes. "Every employee must reach 12 months of employment before becoming eligible for leave. In this sense, the policy is 'pregnancy-blind.' "
The sole dissenting opinion came from Justice Paul E. Pfeifer.
In his dissent, Pfeifer concluded that even if the leave policy was written to treat pregnancy the same as any other disabling condition, it still discriminates against women.
"Pursuant to the Pataskala Oaks employment policy, there was no maternity leave available to McFee," Pfeifer writes in his dissent. "Therefore, her termination constituted direct evidence of unlawful sex discrimination."
Related: Returning to Work After Maternity Leave Requires Balance
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- HICKMAN, DERIAN DOUGLAS PLAINTIFF PRO SE & INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE Defendant Service: Summons Issued Method: Service Issued
- Is it legal to claim relation to a person ? ( OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE FOR MONATERY GAIN) TO BE ILLEGAL ?
- Does the dc superior court represent the irs in a civil filing or does the irs have attorneys?











ReaderComments (Page 3 of 4)
6-26-2010 @ 5:39PM
muckraker87 said...Maybe conservative pro-life people should care about how pregnant women are being treated in the workforce so they can actually support the life of the fetus. I'm sure a mother with no income isn't very good for a newborn.....
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 5:47PM
Draconian said...Is Ohio a Right To Work State? If not, then the State can terminate employment 'for any reason, or no reason at all' as most employment apps. point out. However, would an impoverished, illegal immigrant, new hire with lower pay receive the same treatment?
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:01PM
David S. said...Welcome to Ohio, state of the Dark Ages......
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:02PM
Gary Wilkes said..."....In The United States EVERYTHING is FOR the employer & NOT the employee"..........Which is why labor contracts forced on management by the UAW bankrupted the auto industry. How silly. What you don't seem to understand is that no one should be forced to hire someone whose real interest is to get something for nothing. If you want to have a baby, have a baby. This is about "new hires" - who hide the pregnancy, get hired, then want maternity leave, full medical coverage and employment when they get back - as if they'd been working there for 10 years.
Reply
6-27-2010 @ 4:45AM
uvray said...First, the obvious point; the facility allowed leave for any employee,any reason after ONE YEAR of service, so all the "terrible, awful, unfair strain on our poor unappreciated small business" crap, is a specious argument. Of course the Republican dominated Supreme Court of our (un)fair state is most comfortably at home with it's head(s) up a businessman's rectum. But observe with wonder the workings of the conservative mind. Fetuses are God's greatest gifts, endowed with full inalienable rights from the instant of conception... unless of course it gets in the way of some 21st century Scrooge wringing the last penny out of someone else's labor. Please don't trot out the "entrepenuer's are Jesus on a stick " speech either, stockholders don't write employment rules, toad-like, anal retentive, dried-up supervisor types do, mostly so they can glean more bonus money from other people's labor. Finally, nowhere in the article did it state the leave was PAID. Unpaid leave is the norm. So take the money you don't pay in wages, & rent a temp. But no, lets make this another stick to beat the unwashed laboring class with. After all, if they weren't ignorant, lazy, insubordinate, sub-humans, they would have their own businesses, and all us little owners would sell things back & forth, in a perfect little entrepenurial world. No one would have to get their hands dirty actually making anything, (that would presumably be done by robots or Haitians, whichever was more cost-effective). Face it, business types are mostly sheep in wolves clothing.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:22PM
KM said...A woman may or may not know that she's pregnant in her first trimester, but it is less likely she'll know she's pregnant her first month. IF this woman knew she was pregnant, and did not bring that up during the hiring process, then yes, I will say that she was pushing it and well, sorry, she's out of luck. HOWEVER, if she didn't know, then the situation's a little different. It would have been wise to try to find out if she would be allowed to take pregnancy leave, and if not, to try to make alternate arrangements (from a practical point of view, although I personally believe a mother should be at home with her children during the first weeks of life).
To address all the people who are saying that women wanting to have equality AND special treatment concerning pregnancy in the workplace are whining and they need to be career-minded if they're going to have children and a career: Sometimes women don't go into the workforce looking for a career. They're looking to SURVIVE and SUPPORT their family, because they have no other choice (perhaps because one income isn't enough, or medical bills, or being a single parent). Some of these mothers would rather be stay at home mothers, but don't have that option.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:25PM
alyssa said...i guess ohio should start coming up with more ways to counter the abortion problem in their state cuz thats going to be greatly affected by this desicion.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:29PM
j said...Fair isn't always equal. Because men will never bear children, you cannot apply the same principles to both genders in the workplace. Whether a man's wife has a child or not, he is normally able to work...a woman will have to take some time off because her body requires it, not because she necessarily wants to take advantage of her employer or expects preferential treatment. The rules may be the rules, but as I said, women and men can expect to be treated fairly, but that may not always amount to "equality".
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:32PM
dale said...ohio is getting as corny as california if not worse ! why dont they fire the daddies that make the women prego also?? fair is fair .
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:33PM
bev said...Can't have your cake and eat it too. If women want equal rights and equal pay in the workplace they have to play by all the rules and not take what they want and complain about what they don't want. With these rights women wanted comes rights we lost.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:51PM
Christina said...So I suppose all of you are ok with her being fired and then ALL OF US paying for her to get welfare checks/food stamps? I am sure thats what she is doing now. I am willing to bet she knew she was pregnant...she needed time off after working there 8 months-your prego for 10 so that would make her 2 months when she got hired. If she told them right away maybe she wouldnt be in this situation but at the same time if she did tell them and her employer kept her thats not right for her. They should have got rid of her when they found out. Also it says extended time off, if she was going for the normal 6 weeks off maybe she would still have her job.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 6:53PM
fanblade said...EVERTHING?Thats a universal statement and if anything is universal its nothing applies in every case.There are always exceptions.That being said this is a fair ruling.This is like someone trying to seek a welfare hand out in a covert manner.Her timing is very suspicious,It would appear that she knew she was pregnate prior to getting the job.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 7:11PM
Stanley said...What do you expect. Ohio is a backwater state where thinking is frowned upon. In Ohio the Supreme Court knows that women are second class citizens, which no doubt reflects the mental capacity of the population. No doubt people in Ohio blame all the current problems in this country on Obama, even though they were all insitituted by Bush.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 7:14PM
david said...All of you that think they are owed something, or deserve this or that ... when applying for, and accepting a job, first decide with the person that is allowing you to HELP THEM make money. If you do not like the conditions offered, move on to you mcdonald burger flippin' job.
If you have something special to offer, it is likely that you will get more than the nose picker that feels they are owed something.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 7:17PM
CHARLES REED said...TWO TO THREE WEEKS BEFORE BIRTH IN LONG ENOUGH AND NOT OVER TWO WEEKS AFTER. DON'T FOR GET POP, BY LAW HE ALSO GET'S TIME OFF.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 7:16PM
democrats R. Evil said...here we go again, policy to not go on maternity or get knocked up is a policy violation. get fired and shut your mouth. maybe the impregnator should be casterated for puting a female into that predicament. You left wing nutjobs are a blight on America.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 7:32PM
ajschrod said...The question is poorly worded. No, I don't think new employees should be penalized for getting pregnant, but I DO believe an employer can expect a new hire to not deliver in--lets say---the 1st 6 months of work. A questionaire asking if you're pregnant ought to get a reasonably honest answer, so even a "premie" is covered by not making it a nine -month rule, and six would cover the ground.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 7:46PM
LLburn42 said...and you right wing nut jobs are the most compassionless, souless a-holes ever. "Shut your mouth" what a jerk.
I'm sure you also are a conservative Christian. If so, is that how Jesus would respond in this forum?
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 8:06PM
Bill said...This policy will be nondiscriminatory when men can become pregnant, give birth and actually step up to do at least 50% of family management.
I'm amazed at how anti-family people are in Ohio. Their legislators are about 100 years behind the times. What a backward state. Glad I don't live there.
Reply
6-26-2010 @ 8:06PM
tweb142 said...It sends a clear message: Women KEEP your legs crossed.
Reply