After the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which prohibits “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” many women found themselves working while pregnant.  Most women work up to birth of their child.  During the last 30 years however, the increase in women becoming demoted, fired, or having their wages cut after their pregnancy became evident that Pregnancy Discrimination is not going away.

A Times Healthland article called “Pregnant at work? Why your job could be at risk,” written by Bonnie Rochman, explains that, “Since 2001, the agency has handled 52,000 pregnancy cases that amounted to $150.5 million dollars in damages.”  “Pregnancy discrimination persists in the 21st Century workplace, unnecessarily depriving women of the means to support their families,” said Jacqueline Berrien, Chairwoman of the EEOC.

Women comprise 47% of this Country’s workforce, and are the primary wage provider or co-provider in nearly two-thirds of families.  This is why pregnancy Discrimination needs to be stopped.   Women continue to hope for the possibility of better enforcement of the existing laws protecting their rights during and after pregnancy.  For the time being, it is important that women know their rights under the present laws, and if they encounter discrimination, they need to keep a notebook of all the incidents, and seek the advice of an attorney.

 
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 states:

1. No woman should be discriminated based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or any other pregnancy-related conditions.

2. The Employer should be able to accommodate reasonable requests.

3. Employers are required to treat women affected by a pregnancy related condition the same as other employees according to their ability or inability to work.  If, for instance, fringe benefits, such as sick leave and health insurance are provided for employees suffering from non-pregnancy-related disabilities, then the same benefits must be provided for women suffering from pregnancy-related disabilities.

4. Employers also cannot impose terms and conditions upon pregnant female employees that are not made applicable to employees with other types of medical conditions.

5. What is required simply is that employers do not discriminate between pregnancy-related conditions and other temporary disabilities.

To Read more on Pregnancy Discrimination visit our Pregnancy Discrimination page.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found in favor of an AirTran Airways pilot fired in 2007 in what OSHA deemed “an act of retaliation” after he raised safety concerns about flight operations.  AirTran fired the pilot after he filed ten (10) reports in one day about the imbalanced wheel on an aircraft.  OSHA ordered that the pilot be immediately reinstated and receive more than $1 million in back pay and damages – one of the largest awards in OSHA history.

OSHA assistant secretary David Michaels said in a statement: “Airline workers must be free to raise safety and security concerns, and companies that diminish these rights… must be held accountable”.

The Obama administration announced it plans to extend minimum wage and overtime protection to more than 2 million workers who provide In-home care to frail and disabled people.

These people from health and personal care aides give baths, dispense medicines, cook food and run errands – increasingly complex tasks in a fast-aging society.  Many work for private agencies funded through public programs like Medicaid and Medicare.  Since 1974, the workers have been lumped in with baby-sitters as a class of “companions” exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

“As the home care business has changed over the years, the law hasn’t changed to keep up.”  President Barack Obama said in a statement, “Employers are allowed to pay these workers less than minimum wage with no overtime. That’s just wrong in this country.”

Projections show the home care labor force growing to about 4.3 million by 2018, more than K-12 teachers, public safety employees, fast-food and cashier workers.  The change, which does not require the consent of Congress, would take effect next year after a public comment period.  Its impact will vary from state to state and from employer to employer.

Florida had about 130,000 such workers in 2010, earning an average of $9.42 an hour, according to the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute, a nonprofit advocacy group.  The law would apply only to employees to companies, not to private arrangements.  Frank Stoker, president of Care Team Home Care of Tampa, welcomed the change.  His company already pays its workers $10 to $14 an hour with overtime, he said, but many of his competitors do not.  “This will take that unfair advantage out of this,” Stoker said.  “I don’t care who you are, you should be paid properly.”

 Source:  St. Petersburg Times

                  December 16, 2011

The NLRB’s complaint on Ms. Souza’s behalf—the Agency’s first ever involving a firing related to social media—came after NLRB lawyers in Washington D.C. concluded the firing was illegal because the postings were made during an online discussion among employees about supervisory action, which is considered “protected concerted activity” under the law.

The NLRB’s Mr. Solomon said;  he has been deciding case merits based on offline precedent, but that he understands how companies could be confused. “I can only stress that each of these cases is very factual. ‘It’s not all apples-to-apples,” he said.

Some cases seem clear-cut. A warehouse employee at Frito-Lay was fired after writing on Facebook he was “a hair away from setting it off in that b—–,” apparently referring to the warehouse where he worked. He made the comment after a supervisor said he would lose attendance points if he left work early because he felt unwell.

A Human Resources Manager later told the employee that the comment sounded like a threat to shoot everyone in the warehouse, according to the NLRB’s written account of its investigation.
The employee, Roy Rhone Jr., told the manager he was just venting and “setting it off” meant swearing at someone, or walking out on the job, according to an NLRB’s report. The NLRB said the comments weren’t protected.

The NLRB also decided comments weren’t protected in the Wal Mart case, in which an employee called his assistant manager a derogatory name during a series of Facebook posts after he was reprimanded. The employee, Brian Morris, was suspended for a day, and had promotion chances denied for a year. Mr. Morris didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Read full article click on http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203710704577049822809710332.html?KEYWORDS=angry+employees.