Latest news with #pregnancyDiscrimination
CTV News
2 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
Significant number of Canadian moms who gave birth lost their jobs soon after, new data reveals
Arina Kharlamova was cradling her two-month-old daughter when an email popped into her inbox that disrupted the calm of her maternity leave. The message invited the Whitby, Ont., woman to a meeting where she was told she was part of a layoff affecting 30 per cent of the staff at the company she worked for. 'It felt like a tailspin, honestly,' she recalled. 'It was very, very destabilizing, very difficult to be present and continue just focusing on my baby rather than starting to panic.' Though she didn't know it at the time, Kharlamova was not alone in her experience. A new study funded by advocacy group Moms at Work and law firm Hudson Sinclair found 15 per cent of 1,390 Canadian moms who gave birth in 2022 and 2023 were dismissed, laid off or had their contracts go unrenewed during their pregnancy, maternity leave or when they returned to work. The respondents were surveyed online and reached through social media posts, email blasts and partner organizations, including women's associations across Canada. The overall Canadian workforce has an average involuntary turnover rate of 5.1 per cent, according to 2023 research from consulting firm Mercer. Allison Venditti, Moms at Work's founder, found the gap striking even though she had long suspected there was a connection between motherhood and job loss. She's heard many stories of pregnant women or new moms losing their jobs. Some, like Kharlamova, were terminated as part of a larger group of layoffs because their employer was closing or downsizing, which means they likely would have lost their jobs regardless. However, Venditti suspects that some companies add pregnant women or mothers to broader layoff lists because they're 'out of sight, out of mind' and easy to cut when managers are asked to let go of staff. Others terminate them because they worry parenting will get in the way of work or reduce productivity, she said. When Venditti broached the phenomenon with other people, she says they told her things such as, 'it's not a real problem' or 'anecdotally hearing it from a couple of women doesn't make it true.' Realizing that 'in order to fix the problem, you have to show that it's a problem,' she set off to collect data. At 15 per cent, the findings suggests this group has more than three times the involuntary departure rate as the broader working population. That wound up being 'validating' for Deborah Hudson, a Toronto employment lawyer whose firm co-funded the survey. She's had at least 100 clients, including three in a recent week, draw a link between their pregnancies and their unemployment. Employers cannot lay off workers because they've taken leave but are allowed to terminate employees during their leave if the reason for the cut is entirely unrelated to them being pregnant or giving birth, Hudson said. That means moms on parental leave can legally be laid off if their employer goes out of business, closes one of its divisions or cuts a wide swath of its workforce to cope with mounting costs. But a company can't hire someone to temporarily cover a leave and then terminate the original worker to give the job to their replacement for the long term, Hudson says, because Canadian laws dictate that employees on parental leave must be reinstated to their original position or a comparable role upon their return. In these cases and others, employers are betting their employees won't go to lawyers, she says. Employers that cut staff as a result of their impending or current parental status are often hoping workers won't have the time, energy or funding to fight them, Venditti said. When they do, she said it often ends up in a settlement because no one wants to endure a lengthy and expensive legal process. 'These are women who have been on maternity leave and are often getting 55 per cent (of their wages through employment insurance) who need to go back to work and are, in most instances, not in a financial position to go after their company because they're trying to find daycare and a new job,' she said. While the bulk of Canadian mothers Moms at Work surveyed kept their jobs through pregnancy, 16 per cent were denied flexible work during that time and 11 per cent said they were discouraged from attending prenatal appointments. After giving birth but still on leave, 21 per cent said they were pushed to work while off with their baby and 29 per cent reported feeling pressured to return early. When they were back on the job, 26 per cent reported reduced earnings because they were demoted to lower paying jobs or got fewer bonuses and commissions. Twenty-five per cent were denied promotions and one in six were reassigned 'undesirable duties.' Those numbers suggest to Venditti that 'women are coming back to organizations that are making it very clear that they don't want them there.' 'If they're not pushing you out the door, many places are trying,' she said. Companies should instead think more long-term, said Beth Wanner, a Regina-based marketing executive who started Mother Cover, a firm supporting workers that take leave. She said about a third of parents leave their jobs within 18 months of returning from parental leave. Many make the leap to new companies because they felt unsupported during or after pregnancy at their last employer but would have stuck around if they were afforded more flexible work hours or weren't overlooked for promotions or raises. With companies spending up to 200 per cent of someone's salary to replace employees gone for good and pouring months into training new workers, she said there's not just a moral case but also a business case for them to treat women better during and after their pregnancies. 'This isn't about charity,' she said. 'This isn't about just doing what's right.' It isn't only companies with a role to play. Venditti said there is much the federal government can do as well. Because Canada's current employment insurance program requires recipients to have worked between 420 and 700 hours prior to a leave, when moms lose their jobs during or following pregnancy, they've likely burned through all of or most of their eligibility. She'd like to see income support for mothers not be contingent on hours worked and be more generous than EI, which pays up to 55 per cent of a woman's salary. She envisions those supports could be offered through a program dedicated just for parental leave, rather than the traditional EI system. 'EI was designed as a protection but many, many, many people don't qualify for it anymore,' she said. 'The bottom line is, EI isn't working for most mothers.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press
CTV News
2 days ago
- Business
- CTV News
‘It felt like a tailspin': New data on mothers who lost jobs during pregnancy
Arina Kharlamova was cradling her two-month-old daughter when an email popped into her inbox that disrupted the calm of her maternity leave. The message invited the Whitby, Ont., woman to a meeting where she was told she was part of a layoff affecting 30 per cent of the staff at the company she worked for. 'It felt like a tailspin, honestly,' she recalled. 'It was very, very destabilizing, very difficult to be present and continue just focusing on my baby rather than starting to panic.' Though she didn't know it at the time, Kharlamova was not alone in her experience. A new study funded by advocacy group Moms at Work and law firm Hudson Sinclair found 15 per cent of 1,390 Canadian moms who gave birth in 2022 and 2023 were dismissed, laid off or had their contracts go unrenewed during their pregnancy, maternity leave or when they returned to work. The respondents were surveyed online and reached through social media posts, email blasts and partner organizations, including women's associations across Canada. The overall Canadian workforce has an average involuntary turnover rate of 5.1 per cent, according to 2023 research from consulting firm Mercer. Allison Venditti, Moms at Work's founder, found the gap striking even though she had long suspected there was a connection between motherhood and job loss. She's heard many stories of pregnant women or new moms losing their jobs. Some, like Kharlamova, were terminated as part of a larger group of layoffs because their employer was closing or downsizing, which means they likely would have lost their jobs regardless. However, Venditti suspects that some companies add pregnant women or mothers to broader layoff lists because they're 'out of sight, out of mind' and easy to cut when managers are asked to let go of staff. Others terminate them because they worry parenting will get in the way of work or reduce productivity, she said. When Venditti broached the phenomenon with other people, she says they told her things such as, 'it's not a real problem' or 'anecdotally hearing it from a couple of women doesn't make it true.' Realizing that 'in order to fix the problem, you have to show that it's a problem,' she set off to collect data. At 15 per cent, the findings suggests this group has more than three times the involuntary departure rate as the broader working population. That wound up being 'validating' for Deborah Hudson, a Toronto employment lawyer whose firm co-funded the survey. She's had at least 100 clients, including three in a recent week, draw a link between their pregnancies and their unemployment. Employers cannot lay off workers because they've taken leave but are allowed to terminate employees during their leave if the reason for the cut is entirely unrelated to them being pregnant or giving birth, Hudson said. That means moms on parental leave can legally be laid off if their employer goes out of business, closes one of its divisions or cuts a wide swath of its workforce to cope with mounting costs. But a company can't hire someone to temporarily cover a leave and then terminate the original worker to give the job to their replacement for the long term, Hudson says, because Canadian laws dictate that employees on parental leave must be reinstated to their original position or a comparable role upon their return. In these cases and others, employers are betting their employees won't go to lawyers, she says. Employers that cut staff as a result of their impending or current parental status are often hoping workers won't have the time, energy or funding to fight them, Venditti said. When they do, she said it often ends up in a settlement because no one wants to endure a lengthy and expensive legal process. 'These are women who have been on maternity leave and are often getting 55 per cent (of their wages through employment insurance) who need to go back to work and are, in most instances, not in a financial position to go after their company because they're trying to find daycare and a new job,' she said. While the bulk of Canadian mothers Moms at Work surveyed kept their jobs through pregnancy, 16 per cent were denied flexible work during that time and 11 per cent said they were discouraged from attending prenatal appointments. After giving birth but still on leave, 21 per cent said they were pushed to work while off with their baby and 29 per cent reported feeling pressured to return early. When they were back on the job, 26 per cent reported reduced earnings because they were demoted to lower paying jobs or got fewer bonuses and commissions. Twenty-five per cent were denied promotions and one in six were reassigned 'undesirable duties.' Those numbers suggest to Venditti that 'women are coming back to organizations that are making it very clear that they don't want them there.' 'If they're not pushing you out the door, many places are trying,' she said. Companies should instead think more long-term, said Beth Wanner, a Regina-based marketing executive who started Mother Cover, a firm supporting workers that take leave. She said about a third of parents leave their jobs within 18 months of returning from parental leave. Many make the leap to new companies because they felt unsupported during or after pregnancy at their last employer but would have stuck around if they were afforded more flexible work hours or weren't overlooked for promotions or raises. With companies spending up to 200 per cent of someone's salary to replace employees gone for good and pouring months into training new workers, she said there's not just a moral case but also a business case for them to treat women better during and after their pregnancies. 'This isn't about charity,' she said. 'This isn't about just doing what's right.' It isn't only companies with a role to play. Venditti said there is much the federal government can do as well. Because Canada's current employment insurance program requires recipients to have worked between 420 and 700 hours prior to a leave, when moms lose their jobs during or following pregnancy, they've likely burned through all of or most of their eligibility. She'd like to see income support for mothers not be contingent on hours worked and be more generous than EI, which pays up to 55 per cent of a woman's salary. She envisions those supports could be offered through a program dedicated just for parental leave, rather than the traditional EI system. 'EI was designed as a protection but many, many, many people don't qualify for it anymore,' she said. 'The bottom line is, EI isn't working for most mothers.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Employer will pay $42K to settle EEOC allegations it called pregnant bartender a ‘liability'
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. An Austin, Texas, bar will pay $42,000 to settle claims brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that the business reduced an employee's work hours after she became visibly pregnant and fired her after she was hospitalized with a virus, EEOC announced Tuesday. EEOC filed a complaint against Corner Bar in 2023. The agency claimed the plaintiff was removed from a profitable closing shift and was eventually told she was fired in part because Corner Bar believed she would be 'too much of a liability.' EEOC alleged pregnancy discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas approved a three-year consent decree between the two parties, under which Corner Bar agreed to adopt and implement a written anti-discrimination policy, train all employees and post a notice affirming its anti-discrimination obligations under federal laws. Per the terms of the agreement, Corner Bar denied any wrongdoing or legal violation. In enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination, EEOC has said that adverse treatment of pregnant workers 'often arises from stereotypes and assumptions' about those workers' job capabilities and commitment. Examples cited by EEOC include those in which an employer assumes that a pregnant employee will have attendance issues or leave their job following childbirth. The agency alleged that the plaintiff's manager informed her that Corner Bar was 'genuinely scared something bad [was] going to happen' to the plaintiff, specifically citing a fight that nearly broke out between bar patrons. EEOC further claimed that the manager then removed the plaintiff from the bar's work schedule and replaced her with other employees for all future shifts. 'EEOC is pleased with the resolution of this case, which includes compensation for the former employee who was working to provide for her growing family,' Philip Moss, an EEOC trial attorney, said in an agency press release. 'Unilaterally reducing an employee's hours because of pregnancy is unlawful.' Employers have faced numerous allegations regarding adverse employment decisions made on the basis of pregnancy in recent years. For example, food producer Perdue settled in January a worker's claim that the company placed her on involuntary leave, even though she requested access to water and a bathroom so that she could return to work. Similarly, EEOC sued an Arizona-based call center it alleged had fired at least two pregnant women a week into their training because the company assumed the workers would not be able to comply with its attendance policy. The employer in that case signed a consent decree with EEOC in 2021 that included a $120,000 settlement. Recommended Reading Christian nonprofit freed from complying with abortion elements of PWFA final rule Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
13-05-2025
- Sport
- Forbes
WNBAer Hamby's Pregnancy Suit Survives, Exposes Limits Of League's Arbitration Provision
Photo byIn a May 6, 2025 decision, the Nevada federal court permitted a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit by Los Angeles Sparks forward Dearica Hamby against her former team, the Las Vegas Aces, to proceed. The court did, however, dismiss Hamby's allegations against the WNBA. The case is a bad look for the Aces and the WNBA, the public nature of which is the result of a narrow arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the WNBA and the Women's National Basketball Players Association (WNBPA). Hamby's Lawsuit Hamby entered the 2022 season, her eighth with the Aces, as a pending free agent. However, on June 28, 2022, about six weeks into the season, Hamby and the Aces signed a two-year contract extension through the 2024 season. According to Hamby, a few weeks later on July 18, 2022, she discovered for the first time that she was pregnant with her second child. Hamby confirmed the pregnancy at an August 8, 2022 doctor's appointment. She alleges that at some unspecified date thereafter that she informed Natalie Williams, the Aces' General Manager, of the pregnancy. Hamby continued playing and helped the Aces to the 2022 title. On September 20, 2022, during the Aces' victory parade, Hamby publicly announced her pregnancy. After that announcement, Hamby claims that the team's attitude toward her took a negative turn. In the fall of 2022, Hamby claims that the Aces failed to pay promised tuition for her daughter and also requested that she vacate team-provided housing. Then, in a January 15, 2023 call between Hamby and Aces' head coach Becky Hammon, Hamby claims that Hammon chastised her for not taking precautions against getting pregnant, questioned her commitment to the team and her work ethic and accused Hamby of signing her contract extension knowing that she was pregnant and without informing the team (which would be a violation of the CBA). Hamby denied Hammon's claims and insisted that she would be ready for the next season after giving birth in the offseason. Six days later, on January 21, 2023, the Aces traded Hamby to the Los Angeles Sparks. The Fallout On the day her trade was announced, Hamby made her allegations public in a social media post. Two days later, the WNBPA requested the WNBA to investigate Hamby's claims, which it did. On May 16, 2023, the WNBA announced the results – but not the details – of its investigation. The league rescinded the Aces' 2025 first round Draft pick 'for violating league rules regarding impermissible benefits' and suspended Hammon two games 'for violating league and team Respect in the Workplace policies.' The WNBA said its investigation included 'interviews with 33 people and a review of numerous texts, emails and other documents.' The Aces at that time issued a statement expressing that they were 'deeply disappointed by the outcome of the WNBA investigation' and supporting Hammon. Hamby countered that the WNBA did not interview any other Aces players and otherwise failed to sufficiently address the wrongful conduct. Hamby gave birth to a son on March 6, 2023 and timely reported to training camp for the Sparks on April 28, 2023. She then played all 40 games in the 2023 season, averaging 8.9 points per game. She had her best season ever in 2024, averaging 17.3 points per game. Hamby's Legal Claims Hamby's lawsuit alleges the Aces discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, religion, national origin, color, and sex, including pregnancy. In December 2022, Congress amended the law via the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to require employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees or those with pregnancy-related conditions. However, that law did not take effect until June 2023, after the relevant dates in Hamby's lawsuit and thus is not applicable to her case. Hamby also alleges that the Aces retaliated against her by telling Aces players and staff not to communicate with her, claiming Hamby knew she was pregnant when she signed her contract extension, attempting to obtain her medical records, refusing to invite her to a White House celebration, and prohibiting the Aces' video staff from showing Hamby's daughter on the video screen at a game, something that they had previously done. Finally, Hamby claimed that the WNBA retaliated against her by conducting an inadequate investigation and failing to extend a league marketing contract with her. Hamby's claims against the WNBA relied on the legal claim that the WNBA is her joint employer, i.e., that the WNBA exercises sufficient control over the terms and conditions of her employment such that it could be considered her employer alongside the Aces. The Court's Decision The court ruled that Hamby had plausibly alleged that the Aces had unlawfully retaliated against her as a result of her pregnancy by: (1) not inviting her to the White House; and (2) prohibiting its staff from displaying Hamby's daughter on the video board. However, the court found that Hamby had not sufficiently described the temporal connection between the revelation of her pregnancy and the alleged acts of retaliation, including the Aces' alleged directive to players and staff not to communicate with Hamby, Williams' implication in a radio interview that Hamby had been aware of the pregnancy since June 2022, and the Aces' alleged efforts to obtain Hamby's medical records. The court granted Hamby permission to amend her complaint to clarify the details around these allegations. The court dismissed Hamby's claims against the WNBA, holding that the alleged inadequate investigation without any alleged additional harm is insufficient as a matter of law to constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of a Title VII retaliation claim. Additionally, Hamby's claims of discrimination based on the WNBA's non-renewal of her marketing contract were barred because Hamby had not first brought the claim before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As a result of these conclusions, the court did not have to address the joint employer issue. The court also had to consider whether Hamby sufficiently alleged harm to pursue her claims, given that she never suffered a reduction in pay. Relying on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis which lowered the bar in establishing harm, the court found that Hamby sufficiently alleged harm in moving from the Aces to the Sparks because the Sparks have been less successful and because Hamby is less likely to earn endorsement opportunities in the saturated Los Angeles market as compared to Las Vegas. The Aces did not respond to a request for comment. Case Wide Open One of the interesting aspects of Hamby's lawsuit is that it exists at all. Many American employers require their employees to agree to a private arbitration process for the resolution of any disputes related to or arising out of an employee's employment with that employer. Such provisions are generally broadly drafted to include any and all types of claims, including but not limited to breach of contract, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and unpaid wages. Employers generally prefer these arrangements since arbitration does not include public filings or hearings, is considered faster and cheaper, and avoids the risks associated with jury trials. However, in situations where employees are represented by a union which negotiates a CBA with the employer on behalf of the employees, that agreement typically only requires that claims asserting a violation of the agreement need to be arbitrated – not all claims related to the employment relationship. The arbitration provisions governing all of the major American sports leagues are similar. Indeed, the same is true here, the WNBA and WNBPA CBA only requires arbitration of disputes involving the 'interpretation of, application of, or compliance with the provisions of' the CBA. Hamby's action arises out of federal law and generally does not allege violations of her contract or the CBA. Further on this point, the CBA provides that none of the WNBA, its teams, or the WNBPA will 'discriminate in the interpretation or application' of the CBA 'because of religion, race, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status' or involvement with the WNBPA. Notably, this provision does not reference pregnancy. In October 2024, the WNBPA opted out of the parties' CBA, effective after the season starting this Friday. While the CBA already provides that players are to receive 100% of their base salary while unable to play because of pregnancy, Hamby's case suggests that there may be additional pregnancy-related issues to discuss in the forthcoming negotiations. The league may also want to consider the scope of its arbitration clause. In the meantime, both parties should be incentivized to settle the matter. The Aces and WNBA would certainly prefer that its recent surge in popularity not be clouded by allegations that it is insufficiently supporting its players in one of the most important aspects of their lives. From Hamby's perspective, she is now at a point in the litigation in which she should be able to secure and accept a meaningful settlement, particularly given that her economic damages are highly questionable.
