Pregnancy Discrimination in The Workplace - Case Study: Michele C Krause V UPS Supply chain Solutions - Essay Example

? Pregnancy Discrimination in The Workplace - Case Study: Michele C Krause V UPS Supply chain Solutions Introduction Pregnancy discrimination within the workforce has taken an alarming concern in the recent scenario. According to the fact sheets of maternity associated with redundancy in 2009, it was ascertained that majority of the women who returned after their maternity leave along with a considerable fraction of pregnant working women, were selected for redundancy without any prior information or firm reasons (Maternity action, 2009). A legal framework was subsequently set up to benefit pregnant women in workplaces and securing their interests concerning gender equality and humanitarian rights. Government interventions and corporate rules and regulations were also established correspondingly, to provide pregnant working women with all facilities and maternity compensations as the per the human resource policies. Violation of these maternity leave benefits for the pregnant women by the employer were further deemed fit to pose severe legal implications (Banks & Russell, 2011). Discrimination of pregnant woman in the workplace and the legal implications against such conducts can be better illustrated with reference to the case scenario of Michele C Krause v UPS Supply Chain Solutions (U.S. District Court Massachusetts, 2009). This study therefore intends to discuss about the facts and legal framework being applied within the case scenario applying the modified IRAC model. Issue The issue of the case scenario exhibits a violation of legal rules as mentioned under the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act, the Plaintiff being Michele C. Krause and the Defendant being the Ups Supply Chain Solutions (U.S. District Court Massachusetts, 2009). Ruling With reference to the case scenario the ruling statement was made in favor of the Plaintiff. It was ascertained, as per the court’s decisions, that Plaintiff’s termination was without a good cause and she is liable to recover commissions under the covenant of ‘good faith and fair dealing’ (U.S. District Court Massachusetts, 2009). Facts The facts in the case reveal that Krause was hired by UPS in 2003 as the director of sales. She took a medical leave in 2005 for in vitro fertilization and consequently, became pregnant. She informed the management about her pregnancy, upon which, Steve Coser, the sales manager made critical comments about her. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s pregnancy involved major health risks, which according to her physician, made the Plaintiff unfit to perform her regular office responsibilities, duly informed to the management. However, the case facts revealed that the Plaintiff was forced to participate in a conference call, while enduring immense contraction. Moreover, the Plaintiff further revealed that she was approved with a maternity leave of sixteen weeks, but had to return within eleven weeks due to immense pressure from the management. The Plaintiff further claimed that her manager had tried to sexually harass her during a visit to a client in Kentucky. Consequently, in 2006, the management of UPS terminated the Plaintiff on the grounds of ‘Business Decisions’, which was not related to gender and pregnancy and was also alleged to lack proper legitimate grounds. Subsequently, the plaintiff claimed for court ruling through a summary judgment, which was further governed owing to the absence of ‘a material fact’ [Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19] (U.S. District Court Massachusetts, 2009). Analysis In correspondence with the Maternity Leave Act under the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination (MCAD), the provisions state about the detailed legal restrictions of sex discrimination issues within workplace [Bergin v. Dartmouth Pharm. Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 179, 183]. In this context, the legal implications state that any action of the employers, which negatively affect the employee in the course of her pregnancy and requirements related to maternity leave, will positively amount to the Sex Discrimination under Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L. c. 151B) [Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. MCAD, 808 N.E.2d 257, 269-70]. Correspondingly the law further states that the employers endure no right to restrict or force the women employee from performing her job or from traveling, if she is physically unfit, as was in the case of the Plaintiff [Dunfey v. Roger Williams Univ., 824 F. Supp. 18, 21]. This legal implication relates with the Plaintiff’s claim, where she revealed about the forceful attitude of the management to make her travel for attending a conference in-spite of being informed about the adverse pregnancy implications, which her physician wrote in the letter (2MCAD, 2007). Moreover, the M.G.L further stated about the legal implications related to ‘Pregnancy-Related Medical Conditions as a Disability’ mentioning that a pregnant woman is liable to get a sanctioned leave of eight weeks, but if necessary, additional leave can be a part of employer’s responsibility. The legal implication mentioned above can thus be associated with the Plaintiff’s claim about the leave approval of sixteen weeks by the management, which was later reduced to eleven weeks as a forceful induction of the Defendant. Furthermore, ‘Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Guidelines’ under the MCAD states that the employer, if found guilty with respect to sexual harassment of employee, will considered to be unlawful and will be liable to compensate [Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.,750 N.E.2d 928, 936]. Considering these facts, legal implications affirmed that the claims made by Plaintiff lay considerable responsibilities on the defendant (1MCAD, 2007). It is worth mentioning in this context that pregnancy discrimination is also accounted as a form of gender discrimination liable for legal proceedings, however subjected to a specified time period to impose a valid claim by the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment was of the conclusion that discriminatory benefits to the plaintiff is legitimate and that it bestows obligations on her former employer, i.e. UPS [Gauthier v. Sunhealth Specialty Services, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 227, 236] (U.S. District Court Massachusetts, 2009). Conclusion To sum up, it can be affirmed from the aforesaid case scenario that pregnancy discrimination had occurred against the Plaintiff, which made the defendant liable to provide with compensations demanded by the sufferer on various grounds. Among these were the clauses under Pregnancy-Related Medical Conditions as a Disability laws, Maternity Leave Act and Sex Discrimination under Massachusetts General Law. Apparently, the case presents a classic example of discriminatory and illegitimate obstructions faced by pregnant women in the modern workplaces. The plaintiff was also governed for her commission claims, which were found to be legitimate by the court and correspondingly, the judgment was given against the defendant. References Banks, J., & Russell, H. (2011). Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace: legal framework and review of legal decisions 1999 to 2008. HSE Crisis Pregnancy Programme and the Equality Authority, 1-35. Maternity action. (2009). Alliance against pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/allianceagainstpregnancydiscrimination.pdf 1MCAD. (2007). Sexual harassment in the workplace guidelines. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/mcad/shguide.html 2MCAD. (2007). Maternity leave act. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/mcad/maternity2.html#6 U.S. District Court Massachusetts. (2009). Michele c Krause v ups supply chain solutions. Retrieved from http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=woodlock/pdf/krause%20102809.pdf Read More