Page 30 - MetalForming December 2010

Doug Ehlke, a national board-cer- tified civil trial lawyer, has for more than 30 years represented metalforming companies in OSHA litigation and in labor-union elec- tions. His law practice empha- sizes labor law, personal injury, product liability, probate, estate planning and environmental and employment
discrimination law.
Ehlke Law Offices
28840 11th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-3705 Phone: 253/839-5555
Fax: 253/874-5475
E-mail: dehlke@ehlkelawoffices.com
Iowa’s State Civil Rights Act, patterned after federal anti-discrimination laws, includes coverage for its protected classes, “a person disabled by pregnan- cy because of the employee’s pregnan- cy.” Federal law under the Federal Preg- nancy Discrimination Act (PDA) has previously been applied to protect:
• Women who are not pregnant;
• Women who have taken author- ized maternity leave;
• A woman who was terminated because she took time off to undergo in- vitro fertilization;
• A woman terminated for having an abortion; and
• A woman who couldn’t get rehired because she might become pregnant again. Federal and state courts broadly interpret the “disabled by pregnancy” statutory phrase to include women affected by pregnancy, childhood and other related conditions because, “such a broad interpretation is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the pregnan-
cy discrimination respective statute.” Iowa has added to the above pro-
tected list:
• A new mother who claimed she
was terminated because she couldn’t catch up with her heavy work assign- ment fast enough. The case is Elizabeth C. Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 2009.
Case facts: The plaintiff, Elizabeth DeBoom, began working for Raining Rose in May 2003 as marketing director. The company manufactures natural body-care products, with approximately 15 to 30 employees during the plaintiff ’s employment. A few weeks later, DeBoom informed the company’s president that she was pregnant. He asked her if she planned to return to work after the baby was born, and she said “yes,” and
assured him she was committed to the company. After being on bed rest for approximately two weeks, DeBoom gave birth to a son on January 12, 2004.
Prior to her maternity leave, DeBoom received favorable feedback regarding her work from her employers, especially the company’s president, who visited DeBoom after the baby was born and told her the company was eager to have her back. DeBoom returned to work part-time on March 11, 2004. She testified she had a massive list of proj- ects to be completed. The company president and chairman gave DeBoom a work evaluation she missed due to her maternity leave. They told her she was doing a great job and gave her a 15-per- cent raise.
DeBoom began working full-time on April 12, and was terminated on April 20. The company’s president told DeBoom her position was being elimi- nated and she no longer was a good fit for the company. He told DeBoom they were frustrated she had not completed a major project she had begun before maternity leave.
According to DeBoom, the company president told her she “wasn’t catching up fast enough from the maternity leave and that they had begun to doubt whether she was still committed to the job.” He denied making that statement. He offered DeBoom the opportunity to do freelance work for the company, but she declined.
Deboom filed a claim with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission alleging Rain- ing Rose fired her because of her gender and pregnancy. After the Commission issued a right-to-sue letter, DeBoom filed a discrimination claim lawsuit, which made its way to the Iowa
28 METALFORMING / DECEMBER 2010
www.metalformingmagazine.com
YOU & THE LAW DOUGLAS B.M. EHLKE
Iowa’s Pregnancy Discrimination Law Applies to a “New Mom”