YET ANOTHER PREGNANCY FIRING

This one's in Madison, WI.  Read:

A former saleswoman for a technology company claims she was fired just days after telling her boss she was pregnant.

Pamela Alexander made the allegation against Madison-based NameProtect Inc. in a sex discrimination lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Madison.

The lawsuit seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages against NameProtect, which provides online security and brand protection solutions.

The company is claiming that the firing was for budgetary reasons and not connected to her pregnancy.  You be the judge:

Her lawyer, Jake Westerhof, said it was "hard to find any logic" in NameProtect's "claiming it had budget problems and then firing its top performing salesperson." He said he believed the company anticipated Alexander would take maternity leave, during which she would not produce any sales.

Another salesperson fired that month was rehired in a short enough time that he did not miss a paycheck while two others who sold VigilActive were allowed to keep their jobs, the suit claims.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say "institutionalized anti-life bias."

Comments

[Sara Newcastle]

This is outrageous. Apparently, employers have been using the recession as an excuse to get rid of pregnant women or women on maternity leave.

Discriminating like that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and basic decency!), but it is often hard to prove that motherhood was the basis for the firing if the employer gives a BS excuse.

I found this forum called LawsuitAssembly.com that seems like the perfect place to do something about this despicable practice. If women come and share their firing experience and the name of the company, we can compile a list and figure out whether the percentages are suspicious. I mean, if General Motors fires 1,000 people and 200 of those people are pregnant women, thats 1/5 representation when there may only be a 1/200 rate in the workforce as a whole. If we presented a jury with those numbers, the discrimination would be obvious.

[Sara Newcastle]

I started the forum discussion at:
http://www.lawsuitassembly.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11&sid=a832c200b5774516b5f1dab83799cdf4

Lets do something!