Page 31 - MetalForming December 2010

DieProtection for
Lean
Error-proofing concepts for toolmakers and die designers
Manufacturing By Drew Stevens
This new book from the Precision Metalforming Association is written by long-time die-sensor expert Drew Stevens, who shows readers step by step how to develop modern sensing technologies for the pressroom and apply them to a lean- manufacturing environment. “Slow stamping-press speeds and frequent die crashes are not acceptable,” writes Stevens, “and the manufacturers that choose to shift their thinking to new technologies will prevail in the world metalforming market.”
To learn how to protect investments by applying sensors in your metalforming operation and support your lean- manufacturing directives, order a copy of Stevens’ book today.
Call Marlene at 216-901-8800 x127 Online at www.pma.org and visit our Online Store
Supreme Court following a defense jury verdict for the company. The company had asserted that there was no valid pregnancy claim because DeBoom’s sta- tus as a “new mom” is not part of the protected class of pregnant women.
The State Supreme Court’s hold- ing: Even though the Iowa statute does not recognize a discrimination claim based on the plaintiff ’s status as a new parent, there was substantial evidence linking DeBoom’s termination to her pregnancy. As a result of that ruling and the state court finding improper, missing jury instructions, the Iowa Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court, ordering a new trial for DeBoom.
Court’s analysis: The court analyzed the three-part shifting burdens-of-proof as follows: To establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, the plain- tiff must demonstrate: 1) she was preg- nant; 2) she was qualified for her posi- tion; and 3) her termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden shifts to the defendant to offer a legiti- mate nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. If the employer offers a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, the plaintiff must show the employer’s reason was pretextual and that unlawful discrimination was the real reason for termination.
The court analyzed the plaintiff ’s proof that the employer’s explanation in this case was a “pretext.” Its analysis of this fact is instructive.
DeBoom presented evidence to sup- port an inference of discrimination and rebut the legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination that Raining Rose put forth. First, she presented evi- dence of the circumstances of her ter- mination. Raining Rose admitted it made the decision to terminate DeBoom after she returned to work part-time. DeBoom may fairly argue the termination decision was made before any of her alleged per- formance problems. DeBoom also pro- vided evidence she was never notified of
nor disciplined for substandard per- formance prior to her termination, whereas other employees had received a warning before termination.
Second, DeBoom presented state- ments that a jury could infer animus towards pregnant women. She testified that the chairman had repeatedly asked her if she would be returning to work after giving birth and asked whether she was “going to be like all those other women who find (motherhood to be a) life-altering experience and decide to stay home.” A jury could infer that DeBoom’s employer assumed she would return without the same commitment to her work as before and therefore dis- criminated against her once she returned from maternity leave.
Third, DeBoom asserted that the company created a situation in which she was doomed to fail. The record indicates upon returning from mater- nity leave that she was working on a multitude of projects that had piled up in her absence, along with new assign- ments. Prior to taking maternity leave, DeBoom typically worked 60-hr. weeks. While on maternity leave, Raining Rose hired a temporary replacement to work 10 to 15 hr./week. The replacement did not work on all of the projects assigned to DeBoom, but handled some items as they came up on a daily basis and focused on one particular project.
When DeBoom returned to work part-time two months after giving birth, she was completely overwhelmed with work that had piled up in her absence. She was given a massive list of some 40 projects demanding her attention. Addi- tionally, when DeBoom returned to work full time, she was assigned the task of spending 3 days/week doing door- to-door sales. At the meeting where she was fired, DeBoom testified the presi- dent of the company told her “he felt that she wasn’t catching up fast enough from the maternity leave and that they had begun to doubt whether she was still committed to her job.” MF
www.metalformingmagazine.com
METALFORMING / DECEMBER 2010 29