Fired for Pumping - TOTES

[babybunny]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/08/28/fired_for_pumping/index.html


I sent this email to [email protected]

I am outraged that Totes would fire a woman for taking breaks to pump milk for her baby. It really doesn't matter that the court ruled in your favor. I think a company like yours should be boycotted by all working mothers. I will definitely be reminded of this court ruling every time I see the name "Totes". I will not be purchasing any more of your products.

I will be talking this up in all of the "mommy" message sites. So you can me sure that the message will get out. From a financial standpoint, the $ you think "saved" by firing her will be nothing compared to the lost revenue and bad press. Shame on you.

[JTsMom]

Yeah, they just lost my business for life. Hope that lost 15 mins meant a lot to them. :thumbsdown:

[Snow mom]

I had to quote this from the article/ decision:
"Allen gave birth over five months prior to her termination from . Pregnant [women] who give birth and choose not to breastfeed or pump their breasts do not continue to lactate for five months. Thus, Allen's condition of lactating was not a condition relating to pregnancy but rather a condition related to breastfeeding. Breastfeeding discrimination does not constitute gender discrimination."

The Ohio supreme court are idiots. I wanted to write to [I]them when I read this. I don't really know how these legal decisions work but I hope this gets appealed. It is bad for pumping moms everywhere for this to be the final decision.

[dcmom2b3]

That quote from the court's opinion is INSANE. Lactation isn't related to pregnancy? Or gender? Men can do it too, then? See, I wish I'd known that when I was struggling to BF. Could have had DH pitch in and help.

No more Totes for us, either.

[Melaine]

see, i wish i'd known that when i was struggling to bf. Could have had dh pitch in and help.


:hysterical:

[sunshine873]

That's disgusting!

Here's the message I just sent:

I am outraged that your company actually supported a manager that fired a woman for pumping breastmilk. I am outraged that she (and any other female employees) are not encouraged to take 15 minutes (or more) every few hours to do what is widely known as the single-one best thing you can do for your baby's health. Shame on you Totes/Isotoner. The fact that the court upheld your decision is strictly related to a technicality, and as far as I'm concerned this case never even should have gotten to court. You as a company should have supported your former employee. I for one will be sure to never do business with your company again. I heard about this case on one of the mommy message boards that I frequent, and I assure you that I will spread the word to all of my other friends as well.

[elliput]

Unbelievable. :mad:

I really hope this woman gets the assistance needed to appeal.

[clc053103]

Shocked at this. IME, people that smoke take longer and more frequent smoke breaks than breastfeeding women that take pumping breaks- and in 16 years of working I never saw anyone even get a warning for smoking too often during the day.....

Totes is truly embarrassing themselves here- and hurting their business.

[scrooks]

I'm so embarasssed to live in the state of Ohio...:52:

[Clarity]

I'm so embarasssed to live in the state of Ohio...:52:

:yeahthat: I feel slightly sick.

[TwinFoxes]

My letter:

I have just heard of your case against a former employee who was a working mother. Your decision to fight her right to breastfeed her child by firing her is a slap in the face to working mothers, and mother everywhere. I have bought many umbrellas, gloves and slippers from your company. You will never get another dime from me. You should be ashamed of yourselves. More importantly, you should realize that your actions are causing you to lose many customers who are the the backbone of your business, working mothers. Perhaps your company is doing so well it can lose customers in this economy...

Please know I plan to share this outrage on every parenting website I belong to, as well as on social networking websites.

Regards -


I don't boycott businesses regularly, but this pisses me off. Thanks Babybunny.

[TwinFoxes]

And one more thing...ever notice how SMOKERS seem to get unlimited breaks? That's always pissed me off. But heaven forbid a woman should pump. What the F? If I lived in Ohio I'd be seriously concerned about my rights as a woman.

[Sillygirl]

Thanks for posting - I'll send a letter, too. FOr the first time in twenty-five years, my mom won't be getting a pair of Isotoner slippers for Christmas. I'll find a company that's woman-friendly.

ETA: Here it is.
To: Totes/Isotoner.
Re: Your recent victory in the Ohio Supreme Court.

I have bought my mother a pair of Isotoner slippers every Christmas for the last twenty five years. I have always bought Isotoner gloves and Totes umbrellas. I will never purchase another one of your products. As a mother of two who proudly pumped for her children while working full-time as a physician, I think I can take my ample disposable income and spend it with a company that is woman- and child-friendly. Shame on you.

[TwinFoxes]

Thanks for posting - I'll send a letter, too. FOr the first time in twenty-five years, my mom won't be getting a pair of Isotoner slippers for Christmas. I'll find a company that's woman-friendly.

Exactly, I buy Isotoner slipper every year for someone. And I lose umbrellas like there's no tomorrow. No more Totes brollys for me.

[wellyes]

Bye Totes!

What really appalls me is that they're being self-righteous about it: "Totes has taken the position since the beginning of this case that it terminated the plaintiff (Allen) for a proper reason, and that's that she took unauthorized work breaks, regardless of her sex or condition." Yeah, what champions against discrimination.

Here's my letter:

Hello - I'm a longtime Totes customer who is absolutely APPALLED at the story of the woman you fired for pumping breastmilk to feed her 5-month-old baby. As a working mother who pumped for a year myself, I find myself regretting that I carry a Totes umbrella. I am forwarding the story about Allen's firing to every working mother that I know. I do not intend to purchase any more Totes products until you announce that you have changed your policy with regard to pumping breaks at work ---- and have designed proper mother's rooms in your facilities so that women like Ms. Allen don't have to resort to expressing breastmilk in the restroom.

It galls me to think of the babies of Totes employees who are now being FF due to fear of firing.

[Snow mom]

Here's the press release from Totes:
http://www.totes-isotoner.com/text/content/custserv/press_releases/Ohio_Supreme_Court_Case_Ruling.html

I don't understand how they can say they are so family friendly in light of this case.

ETA: I love that the last name of the person to contact is "Fightmaster." So perfect...

[MontrealMum]

Not cool at all. Off to write a letter and spread the word. I know LOTS of women that like Isotoner...but not for long ;)

[mommylamb]

Just sent my email. I sent it to [email protected], as this is the person listed as a contact in the press release Snow mom posted.

[tylersmama]

While I am not supporting Totes position *at all* (and do, in fact think that they could probably have worked with this woman to find a happy solution for all), it's important to note here that the Supreme Court did not actually rule that discrimination for lactation can't be considered sex discrimination. In fact, they did actually write in their opinion that it can. However, they did not rule on that part of the case because they ruled that the woman was fired for taking unauthorized breaks. The ruling was that because she didn't ask permission to take breaks to pump, her claim that she was fired because of discrimination did not apply. Had she been fired for using her authorized breaks to pump, it seems that the court would have ruled on her side. See http://ohioemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2009/08/ohio-supreme-court-avoids-issue-of.html

[mommylamb]

regardless of the way the court ruled, the company should have been more forward thinking. I mean, do people have to ask for "authorized" breaks to go to the bathroom?

[babybunny]

I just sent off another email to totes - care of Vickie Fightmaster who sent their press release -- I took some of the wording from the previous poster's email and added some more.

"I have just read your press release of your case against a former employee who was a working mother. Your decision to fight her right to breast feed/pump milk for her child is a slap in the face to working mothers.

Here are a few facts that you might want to pass on to your executives --
Babies who nurse are healthier, and therefore their Moms have to take fewer days off for their sick care - a benefit to every business.
The recommendation is to nurse for at least a year.
If a nursing mother does not express milk on a regular basis, there can be serious health issues for her. It's not something that you can just turn on and turn off.
Pumping regularly maintains the level of milk production - which directly relates to the health and welfare of the baby.
Stress reduces milk production - so your company's stand is having a huge impact on babies of all nursing mothers in your company. So I honestly cannot believe your statement that your company is family friendly.

I have bought many umbrellas, gloves and slippers from your company. You will never get another dime from me. You should be ashamed of yourselves. More importantly, you should realize that your actions are causing you to lose many customers who are the backbone of your business, working mothers. "

[Clarity]

Here's a local article that provides a bit more detail:
http://www.western-star.com/news/lebanon-oh-news/totes-disputes-lactation-lawsuit-121943.html?cxtype=rss_local-news

[ThreeofUs]

I'm so embarasssed to live in the state of Ohio...:52:


:yeahthat: I really can't believe what I just read. I just can't believe it.

Off to go look up the case and see if there's something there I've missed.

[dukie41181]

Shocked at this. IME, people that smoke take longer and more frequent smoke breaks than breastfeeding women that take pumping breaks- and in 16 years of working I never saw anyone even get a warning for smoking too often during the day.....

Totes is truly embarrassing themselves here- and hurting their business.

:yeahthat:

It surely is ridiculous! Take as much time as you need to do something unhealthy but can't take the time to support health! Just to be a smart ass, I say women should just go outside (like the smokers) and pump to make a point!

[babybunny]

Well - yes, I would think that waiting from from 5:30 am to 11:00 am to pump is completely unacceptable. Especially since milk production is higher in the morning. Poor thing. Imagine the embarrassment of having to ask a male (or female) supervisor to take a break while you are leaking through your shirt?????

[brittone2]

Positively disgusting. I just sent my letter off. My mom was just talking about how she bought an extra pair of slippers for an upcoming surgery so she could use the old ones at the hospital and then toss them. I usually buy her a pair every year or so, and we've bought many Totes umbrellas. No longer!! I told them I'd be sure to spread the word on their policies to my fellow moms, many of whom pump or breastfeed. I know my mom will also be disgusted by their policy.

[Sillygirl]

Here's a local article that provides a bit more detail:
http://www.western-star.com/news/lebanon-oh-news/totes-disputes-lactation-lawsuit-121943.html?cxtype=rss_local-news


That article is really helpful. In spite of their fancy press release, Totes appears to have the idea that all moms of five month olds should be able to go without pumping for nearly six hours in the morning when milk production is highest. Ridiculous.

[ThreeofUs]

Okay, I see that they ruled on "taking unauthorized breaks" (she didn't ask to go pump, I guess) vs "taking a break for breastfeeding", which is imho definitely a technicality.

Even the three justices (including the chief justice, Moyer) who wrote or supported positive opinions relating to breastfeeding and the workplace said,

"Although Allen’s unauthorized breaks may have been to pump milk, Allen could not properly engage in such actions without her employer’s knowledge and permission. The [laws] mandate that an employer treat pregnancy with neutrality, but not preferentially."

Off to write a letter to Totes. What idiots to prosecute a case like this!

[Clarity]

I'm asking you all to do three things. First, forward this information to everyone you know. Second, STOP purchasing products from TOTES. Yes, this means their umbrella's, their Isotoner gloves and slippers, etc. And thirdly, take the time to let TOTES know how you feel about their decision to fire an employee who was trying to pump to feed her baby! Here's the email: [email protected] ([email protected])


Thanks OP for bringing this to our attention!

[jenmcadams]

While I am not supporting Totes position *at all* (and do, in fact think that they could probably have worked with this woman to find a happy solution for all), it's important to note here that the Supreme Court did not actually rule that discrimination for lactation can't be considered sex discrimination. In fact, they did actually write in their opinion that it can. However, they did not rule on that part of the case because they ruled that the woman was fired for taking unauthorized breaks. The ruling was that because she didn't ask permission to take breaks to pump, her claim that she was fired because of discrimination did not apply. Had she been fired for using her authorized breaks to pump, it seems that the court would have ruled on her side. See http://ohioemploymentlaw.blogspot.com/2009/08/ohio-supreme-court-avoids-issue-of.html

I agree with this...I don't support Totes and this will make me stop buying their products, but I sometimes think breastfeeding advocates hurt their position, by blindly supporting someone's right to pump no matter what the impact on other employees and no matter what the workplace rules are. I think advocates could do more by working to enact laws/educate employers. Personally, if I were the employer I would work with my BF employees to help find them a place/time to pump (and obviously not make someone wait 6 hours), but if an employee took unauthorized breaks to pump, they obviously hurt their position. Until there are laws supporting a woman's right to pump breaks (maybe something along the lines of pumping moms are given extra breaks which they can make up later), people need to work within (or try to change) the work rules at their place of employment and not take unauthorized breaks. Like it or not, the right to pump isn't a protected right and until it is, a business can decide what it's work rules are and employees can choose whether to work there and consumers can choose whether to support the business.

Having said all of that, I think Totes was stupid and I support everyone who decides to boycott the company, I just don't think they did anything legally wrong and unfortunately the plaintiff doesn't seem to have had a great case. I completely support BF (and was lucky enough to be able to BF both my kiddos for 12+ months and didn't have to deal with a crappy employer), but while I think what Totes did was stupid and short-sighted, it wasn't, unfortunately, illegal

[ThreeofUs]

Dear Totes/Isotoner-

I just read about your case against a former employee who took unauthorized breaks to pump her milk. I'm aghast. As a nursing mother and business owner, I am writing to express my dismay first that you should EVER deny a mother the time to pump her breasts and second that you should allow such a case to go to court at all.

The first is discrimination and a black eye to working and nursing moms everywhere. I *own* my business (and my boss is a real slave-driver, let me tell you - I see her in the mirror) and I nurse and pump through the day. It supports my baby, takes less time than a smoking break, and enables both my baby and I to stay healthier.

The second is sheer stupidity. As a management consultant, I'm horrified that a company should pursue such a course. How much money and how much good press is the decision to go to court - all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court - going to cost your company? Can you honestly defend alienating a core customer base?

Here is the case from a mother's point of view:
-Babies who nurse are healthier, and therefore their moms have to take fewer days off for their sick care.
-The American Pediatric Association recommendation is to nurse for at least a year. The World Health Organization concurs.
-If a nursing mother does not express milk on a regular basis, there can be serious health issues for her. It's not something that you can just turn on and turn off.
-Nursing moms produce most of their milk in the mornings.
Adding these together, regardless of whether the employee asked to take the breaks, once her behavior was noticed and explained, any reasonably well trained boss should have provided the time to pump.

Over the years, I have purchased many items from your company - for myself, for my family, for gifts. You may rest assured I will not - and my friends will not - purchase from you again.

I am saddened to hear of such a case. As an Ohioan, I'm ashamed it happened in my state.

Yours sincerely,

[JTsMom]

Thanks for posting the email addy. I wrote too. Seriously, what were they thinking?!? This is going to be a PR nightmare for them.

[3blackcats]

I wrote a letter as well.

I have just read about your company firing a mother for pumping for her child while she was at work. You must be able to afford to lose customers. Every year for the holidays I purchase at least 5 pairs of Isotoner gloves for family members. It may not mean much losing my business, but you have angered a community of mothers who are probably the main supporters of your brand. I hope this incident, which could have been handled by maybe asking the employee to stay 30mins after her shift to make up the difference, hurts your company and brand. Maybe the higher ups should have been fired, not the woman who was doing the best for her child.

Think about your mothers/daughters/wives, would you want them treated like this?

I would type more, but I am off to remove every pair of Isotoner gloves and Totes umbrellas from my house. Then, I shall tell everyone I know to do the same.

Sincerely,

[o_mom]

I agree with this...I don't support Totes and this will make me stop buying their products, but I sometimes think breastfeeding advocates hurt their position, by blindly supporting someone's right to pump no matter what the impact on other employees and no matter what the workplace rules are. I think advocates could do more by working to enact laws/educate employers. Personally, if I were the employer I would work with my BF employees to help find them a place/time to pump (and obviously not make someone wait 6 hours), but if an employee took unauthorized breaks to pump, they obviously hurt their position. Until there are laws supporting a woman's right to pump breaks (maybe something along the lines of pumping moms are given extra breaks which they can make up later), people need to work within (or try to change) the work rules at their place of employment and not take unauthorized breaks. Like it or not, the right to pump isn't a protected right and until it is, a business can decide what it's work rules are and employees can choose whether to work there and consumers can choose whether to support the business.



If they fired her for 'unauthorized breaks', though, then why weren't the employees who took unauthorized bathroom and smoke breaks fired?

Based on that article, it seems they fired her because her breaks were for pumping, unauthorized or not. That is discrimination. Just having the policy that you can fire someone for unauthorized breaks does not give you the right to enforce it in a discriminatory manner. Meaning, that if only african-american employees were fired for unauthorized breaks while all the white employees' unauthorized breaks were overlooked, that is discrimination, no matter what your policy says. The ruling that breastfeeding is not related to a protected class (namely gender or pregnancy) is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

[shoxie]

I wrote, as well. This is beyond ridiculous. Pumping should be considered a bodily function - can you schedule when you pee/poop everyday, too? I mean, come on, are we little kids now that we have to clear breaks each time? I've never heard of anything so idiotic.

And, even if it's not illegal, why would a company want to support something so obviously morally reprehensible as firing a mom because she pumped at not exactly the time she was told to? Honestly, pumping can also depend on things like your baby's appetite the previous night and that morning. If baby wasn't that hungry, you may have to pump sooner...I am livid for this woman. This has got to be one of the most moronic PR moves ever - and from a company who sells the majority, I'd think, of their products to mothers...bah.

[Sillygirl]

I think this is where boycotts are useful - when a company is technically within the limits of the law, but morally outrageous. Since the law is not on our side, we have to apply pressure with our dollars.

[arivecchi]

Wow. While what the company did may not have been technically illegal, it is incredibly shortsighted from a PR and HR perspective. And what is up with the Ohio justices? :shake:

[BillK]

Sounds like the Ohio Supreme Court needs to be cc'd on all these letters as well.

[TwoBees]

Infuriating. How is taking a break to pump different than taking a break to smokers? I see people here at work who take 10 minute breaks 5 times a day. Does Totes restrict smoke breaks too? Stuff like this makes me sick.

[carolinamama]

Shocked at this. IME, people that smoke take longer and more frequent smoke breaks than breastfeeding women that take pumping breaks- and in 16 years of working I never saw anyone even get a warning for smoking too often during the day.....

Totes is truly embarrassing themselves here- and hurting their business.

:yeahthat:

This is just disgusting and really sets women's rights back.

[wellyes]

If they fired her for 'unauthorized breaks', though, then why weren't the employees who took unauthorized bathroom and smoke breaks fired?

Yup. Why do they care what she's doing in the bathroom?


Until there are laws supporting a woman's right to pump breaks (maybe something along the lines of pumping moms are given extra breaks which they can make up later), people need to work within (or try to change) the work rules at their place of employment and not take unauthorized breaks.

I understand where you're coming from, and in general I agree, but not when following the rules has such a negative impact (physical pain, disruption of breastfeeding relationship, no milk to feed a 5-month-old baby simpy due to company policy.). I acknowledge that Totes was within its rights but many many many companies who could act as they do chose not to. So boycott/protest/public shaming are the tools we as consumers use to let them know that their choice to enforce their policy in this manner is unacceptable.

[ThreeofUs]

From my DH to Totes

Subject: Unbelievable.

As a father who wants my children (and others!) to have the best possible start, I was dismayed to hear about the recent Ohio Supreme Court case in which you fired an employee for pumping.

My family and I will be boycotting your products, and telling our family and friends to do likewise. Based on what I've read, I find your actions shameful.

[lowrioh]

I just posted this to my facebook page....I'll be interested to see how many of my friends comment.

[Laurel]

I just posted this to my facebook page....I'll be interested to see how many of my friends comment.

Me too. Bad move Totes, the internet is viral and powerful!

[firsttimemama]

sent an email and disseminated the story widely!

Dumb move Totes!

[ShayleighCarsensMom]

WOW...shocking, really shocking.
I sent them a nasty-gram as well and posted it on other online boards. I hope they realize they've made a grave mistake!

[mamalia]

Disgusting. Thank you for posting this. I just sent this email to the address you provided.

Shame on you Totes/Isotoner. I am outraged that your company does not support breastfeeding employees. You may have received court sanction for firing an employee who took 15 minute breaks to keep up her milk supply. But you have lost a customer, and I assure you I will spread the word to all of my friends and family as well. Besides the moral obligation to support an employee in her efforts to care for her family. You also shirked a lager obligation to your community. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children be EXCLUSIVELY breast fed for the first six months of life, and encourages continued breastfeeding for the first year. Breastfeeding has been linked to increased immune systems, higher intelligence, and decreased risks for obesity in children. I am outraged that you would deny a mother the opportunity to provide these advantages to her child.

I will never knowingly do business with your company again. I heard about this case on one of the national parenting message boards that I frequent, and I assure you I am not the only outraged parent.

Disapproving customer,

[Sillygirl]

What could they do to make things right? I think a boycott is more effective when there are specified demands.

How about -
Posting the "Breastfeeding welcome" symbol in all their retail outlets.
Having LaLeche or some other trusted organization go over their corporate policies and vouch that they are sensitive to the needs of working mothers.
Company support for legislation that protects the right to breastfeed.

Any other ideas? I doubt they're going to hire back the litigant, and wouldn't ask them to.

[wellyes]

What I said in my letter is that I think they (and any large corporation) should provide a space for mothers to pump that is not a toilet. Just convert any small storage room or other private space. Does't have to be a full-time dedicated space, and all we need is an an electrical outlet and a chair. Not much to ask, IMO.

[Snow mom]

What could they do to make things right? I think a boycott is more effective when there are specified demands.

How about -
Posting the "Breastfeeding welcome" symbol in all their retail outlets.
Having LaLeche or some other trusted organization go over their corporate policies and vouch that they are sensitive to the needs of working mothers.
Company support for legislation that protects the right to breastfeed.

Any other ideas? I doubt they're going to hire back the litigant, and wouldn't ask them to.

I think this is a really good point. In reading their press release it seems they claim they are providing for the needs of working mothers by providing breaks and a lactation room. However, it seems to me that if an employee is taking unsanctioned breaks to sneak away and pump there is something broken in their system. Who would sneak and pump in the bathroom if managers are so willing to work with nursing mothers and provide a safe environment for pumping? It seems to me they need to ensure their managers have training on company policies (if they truly support breast feeding as described) and are approachable with needs and concerns. If managers are bullying employees, those employees might not feel safe asking for breaks to pump.

[elektra]

ridiculous. Is this from the onion? As a currently pumping mom I am so glad I work for a company that supports me.

[Kitten007]

Boycotting too and telling everyone I know!!!

[pantrygirl]

I feel very fortunate as well but feel sad that a company that large could not find a solution.

When I told my husband about this he immediately said, "What about smokers? Are they on scheduled breaks for smoking? It seems to be discriminatory to me."

If anyone is interested the court opinion can be found here (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-4231.pdf). Sorry if this was posted already. I'm trying to catch up while I'm pumping so this may have been posted already.

[tylersmama]

regardless of the way the court ruled, the company should have been more forward thinking. I mean, do people have to ask for "authorized" breaks to go to the bathroom?
I actually read on another message board where a poster's DH with irritable bowel syndrome *was* fired for taking unauthorized breaks to go to the bathroom. Again, not that it makes it ok, just that it's not illegal. And I completely agree about smokers taking unauthorized breaks. But if this was a case of someone who got fired for taking unauthorized smoke breaks, it would never have made headlines because it would have gotten thrown out of court immediately, most likely. I think the only reason it went as far as it did was because it was about lactation.


I agree with this...I don't support Totes and this will make me stop buying their products, but I sometimes think breastfeeding advocates hurt their position, by blindly supporting someone's right to pump no matter what the impact on other employees and no matter what the workplace rules are. I think advocates could do more by working to enact laws/educate employers. Personally, if I were the employer I would work with my BF employees to help find them a place/time to pump (and obviously not make someone wait 6 hours), but if an employee took unauthorized breaks to pump, they obviously hurt their position. Until there are laws supporting a woman's right to pump breaks (maybe something along the lines of pumping moms are given extra breaks which they can make up later), people need to work within (or try to change) the work rules at their place of employment and not take unauthorized breaks. Like it or not, the right to pump isn't a protected right and until it is, a business can decide what it's work rules are and employees can choose whether to work there and consumers can choose whether to support the business.

Having said all of that, I think Totes was stupid and I support everyone who decides to boycott the company, I just don't think they did anything legally wrong and unfortunately the plaintiff doesn't seem to have had a great case. I completely support BF (and was lucky enough to be able to BF both my kiddos for 12+ months and didn't have to deal with a crappy employer), but while I think what Totes did was stupid and short-sighted, it wasn't, unfortunately, illegal
:yeahthat:

[o_mom]

I actually read on another message board where a poster's DH with irritable bowel syndrome *was* fired for taking unauthorized breaks to go to the bathroom. Again, not that it makes it ok, just that it's not illegal. And I completely agree about smokers taking unauthorized breaks. But if this was a case of someone who got fired for taking unauthorized smoke breaks, it would never have made headlines because it would have gotten thrown out of court immediately, most likely. I think the only reason it went as far as it did was because it was about lactation.

If that poster's DH and all the employees there had to get permission for restroom breaks, then he was being treated the same. That is not the case here. Other, non-lactating, employees were NOT required to get authorization to go to the bathroom, nor were they restricted on the time it took. From the dissenting opinion:


The appellate court does not explain why Allen’s trips to the
restroom outside scheduled break times were different from the restroom trips
other employees made outside scheduled break times. There is no evidence in the
record about any limit on the length of unscheduled restroom breaks and no
evidence that employees had to seek permission from a supervisor to take an
unscheduled restroom break. There is evidence only that unscheduled bathroom
breaks were allowed and that LaNisa Allen was fired for taking them. What made
her breaks different?

The other half of the claim is that lactation is a result of preganacy and should be considered the same protected class and not discriminated against. That they could find lactation is not linked to preganancy because formula is available is pretty lame, IMO.

[ThreeofUs]

If that poster's DH and all the employees there had to get permission for restroom breaks, then he was being treated the same. That is not the case here. Other, non-lactating, employees were NOT required to get authorization to go to the bathroom, nor were they restricted on the time it took. From the dissenting opinion:


The appellate court does not explain why Allen’s trips to the
restroom outside scheduled break times were different from the restroom trips
other employees made outside scheduled break times. There is no evidence in the
record about any limit on the length of unscheduled restroom breaks and no
evidence that employees had to seek permission from a supervisor to take an
unscheduled restroom break. There is evidence only that unscheduled bathroom
breaks were allowed and that LaNisa Allen was fired for taking them. What made
her breaks different?

The other half of the claim is that lactation is a result of preganacy and should be considered the same protected class and not discriminated against. That they could find lactation is not linked to preganancy because formula is available is pretty lame, IMO.


Thank you for posting this piece of the dissent. I really think this is where the crux of the case lies, not in just ruling on whether an employee must ask for breaks. I also agree their decision stinks. Horribly.

[wellyes]

I sometimes think breastfeeding advocates hurt their position, by blindly supporting someone's right to pump no matter what the impact on other employees and no matter what the workplace rules are.

I don't think most of us would indiscriminately support pumping any time, anywhere. An emergency room doctor or air traffic controller demanding the right to leave for a pumping break even in mid-procedure would not get a lot of sympathy.

But this case, the woman was leaking breastmilk through her shirt, saw that other workers took unauthorized-but-unpunished smoke breaks, so she opted to take her own break. From one of the articles linked above:

Allen, who was hired as a temporary worker, said she was ordered to wait until an 11 a.m. break to pump her breast milk. But she said the wait began causing her breast to engorge, so she began taking extra breaks at 10 a.m. after she said she noticed co-workers take bathroom and smoke breaks. When discovered by supervisors, she said she was fired.
We had to be there at 6 a.m. That (waiting until 11 a.m.) was too long. ... My breast and back were hurting,” said Allen, who said she fed her son before going to work at 5:30 a.m. and needed to pump her milk at least every three hours. “It was uncomfortable and I started leaking through my shirt.”


So she was breaking a rule, but it was a rule that was not always or consistantly enforced.

[edurnemk]

Pregnant [women] who give birth and choose not to breastfeed or pump their breasts do not continue to lactate for five months.

WHAAATT??!!!! So even though the AAP recommends BF for a year the state of Ohio has decided it's not physically possible to still lactate after only 5 months? On what do they base this statement? Unbelievable.

So Ohio has no law to protect BF mothers? I can't believe it. Texas has a huge campaing about mother's rights to BF in public and pump.

[honeybefly]

G i r l c o t t !

[kijip]

What could they do to make things right? I think a boycott is more effective when there are specified demands.

How about -
Posting the "Breastfeeding welcome" symbol in all their retail outlets.
Having LaLeche or some other trusted organization go over their corporate policies and vouch that they are sensitive to the needs of working mothers.
Company support for legislation that protects the right to breastfeed.

Any other ideas? I doubt they're going to hire back the litigant, and wouldn't ask them to.

I agree. In my note I specified I would not purchase their products until they addressed the needs of working, pumping mothers with a reasonable accommodation for pumping employees and posted the international breastfeeding symbol in stores. I like to present a remedy to my grievance in this sort of correspondence.

[kijip]

Like it or not, the right to pump isn't a protected right and until it is, a business can decide what it's work rules are and employees can choose whether to work there and consumers can choose whether to support the business.

Having said all of that, I think Totes was stupid and I support everyone who decides to boycott the company, I just don't think they did anything legally wrong and unfortunately the plaintiff doesn't seem to have had a great case. I completely support BF (and was lucky enough to be able to BF both my kiddos for 12+ months and didn't have to deal with a crappy employer), but while I think what Totes did was stupid and short-sighted, it wasn't, unfortunately, illegal


I see your point, however I think the end needs to be laws in every state providing a right to pumping breaks and the right to breaks every 3-4 hours min for all workers (in professions where this is feasible). Some states already have laws like this.

[goldenpig]

Posted this topic to Facebook and my mother's club forum.
Sent email to Totes:

Dear Ms. Fightmaster,
I was extremely disappointed and outraged to hear about the recent firing of a breastfeeding employee for taking "unauthorized" breaks to pump milk for her child. Breastfeeding is a bodily function. Other employees don't have to ask permission to go to the restroom to urinate or defecate, do they? And what about smokers...I'm sure they spend more time on break than pumping mothers do. The only reason she was fired was because she was using these breaks to pump. This amounts to gender and pregnancy discrimination. Shame on your company for punishing a mother for wanting to feed her child in the best way possible. Especially if she is engorged, she should not have been forced to wait six hours to pump at her "authorized" break--this can cause breast infections. And no, breastfeeding does not have to stop at five months. As a working mother and physician, I pumped at work two to three times a day for over a year. My two year old daughter still nurses and this is completely natural and normal. I think your company was extremely shortsighted in they way they handled this matter and I for one will make sure never to buy Totes or Isotoner products in the future and I will be forwarding this information to all my Facebook contacts and mother's club forum so they will know what kind of "family-friendly" company you are.

[ladysoapmaker]

I'm so embarasssed to live in the state of Ohio...:52:

:yeahthat:

[elliput]

Something that occurred to me is when her "pumping break" was scheduled for- 11am. Her shift started at 6am. The office situations that I had been in to which I reported for at 8am and had a lunch break which would start sometime between 11:30am and 12:30pm (depending on schedules/work load/etc). This makes me think that she was not given a time other than her already scheduled and unpaid lunch break during which time she allowed to pump. So IMO, the company was not providing her anything with regards to breastfeeding/family support. Especially since apparently she had to use the restroom facilities to pump.

I think I am even more disgusted.

[Clarity]

WHAAATT??!!!! So even though the AAP recommends BF for a year the state of Ohio has decided it's not physically possible to still lactate after only 5 months? On what do they base this statement? Unbelievable.

So Ohio has no law to protect BF mothers? I can't believe it. Texas has a huge campaing about mother's rights to BF in public and pump.


As an Ohioan that pumps/breastfeeds, I actually found myself almost offended by this post, so I have to reply. First of all, in the state of Ohio the law is as follows: A mother is entitled to breast-feed her baby in any location of a place of public accommodation wherein the mother otherwise is permitted. We can breastfeed anywhere. Rightly so.

And, the court did not say that it was not physically possible to lactate after 5 months, the court said, albeit wrongly, that because ALL women did not lactate 5 months after pregnancy, that it was not a condition of pregnancy. That was pretty stupid, but they didn't suggest women could simply not lactate after a certain point.

I just didn't want others skimming this thread to see this and think that information was accurate.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

Kinda OT, but I sent the Salon.com link to a Hip Mama's group in my area and someone ACCUSED me of sending a virus. I would imagine if there really was, someone here would have gotten one. Right???

[MontrealMum]

Something that occurred to me is when her "pumping break" was scheduled for- 11am. Her shift started at 6am. The office situations that I had been in to which I reported for at 8am and had a lunch break which would start sometime between 11:30am and 12:30pm (depending on schedules/work load/etc). This makes me think that she was not given a time other than her already scheduled and unpaid lunch break during which time she allowed to pump. So IMO, the company was not providing her anything with regards to breastfeeding/family support. Especially since apparently she had to use the restroom facilities to pump.

I think I am even more disgusted.

This is a very good point, and I don't understand why she wasn't allowed more breaks either. I don't understand why she was only allowed one half-hour break, regardless of what she chose to do on it. In some of the press it says that she worked from 6 to 2:30, so 8 1/2 hours, and that the pumping time allotted to her by the company was a half-hour "lunch".

When I used to do hourly work like this woman did, for every 4 hours you worked it was mandated that you take a 15 min. break; work 8, and you took two 15 min. breaks and half an hour for lunch. Is that only in MI, or has that changed? You had to clock out for all three of those, and if you didn't have a record of doing so, the manager would get quite upset as that's extra time that they have to pay, and their scheduling/budgeting took that hour into account.

No real answers, just thinking about the situation...

[kijip]

When I used to do hourly work like this woman did, for every 4 hours you worked it was mandated that you take a 15 min. break; work 8, and you took two 15 min. breaks and half an hour for lunch. Is that only in MI, or has that changed? You had to clock out for all three of those, and if you didn't have a record of doing so, the manager would get quite upset as that's extra time that they have to pay, and their scheduling/budgeting took that hour into account.

No real answers, just thinking about the situation...

IIRC, There is no federal law mandating breaks for adult workers. Many, many states have the law you described from working in MI. However, it is my understanding that Ohio does not.

[Reyadawnbringer]

Kinda OT, but I sent the Salon.com link to a Hip Mama's group in my area and someone ACCUSED me of sending a virus. I would imagine if there really was, someone here would have gotten one. Right???


I wasn't accused of sending a virus but when I sent the link to my friends and family it no longer linked to the article I was referring to but instead something about abortion or w/e. I was completely embarressed to have linked to that as it made my email seem like a meaningless spam forward :(

[ladysoapmaker]

This is a very good point, and I don't understand why she wasn't allowed more breaks either. I don't understand why she was only allowed one half-hour break, regardless of what she chose to do on it. In some of the press it says that she worked from 6 to 2:30, so 8 1/2 hours, and that the pumping time allotted to her by the company was a half-hour "lunch".



In the state of Ohio the law states that you must provide paid 15min breaks for every 4 hours working for minors. There are some other restrictions on how long they can work. Now the gray area is how often you have to provide a break for an adult employee. My DH (used to manage a Pizza place) says he always provided for a 1/2 hour unpaid break after 5 hours which he thinks might be part of the law but he's not sure. Basically most companies will here will state in their handbook that if you work less then 5 hours you can have a single 15 minute paid break but if you work more then 5 hours you will get a single 30 minute unpaid break for each 8 hour shift. Then depending on the management they may put that at 5 hours or 4 hours or 6 hours... there is no consistency as to when they provide the break.

I am going to be writing a letter to my state legislator asking for help to fix this issue. Now I doubt anything will happen as he's almost to his term limit and he's not known for being overly concerned with anything but outlawing abortion, denying same-sex marriages, and providing huge tax breaks to mega corporation and stripping down any environmental regulations he can.

Jen

[niccig]

I think I read, can't remember where, that she did have an earlier break, but it was only 10 mins and not enough time to pump. She couldn't wait until the lunch break as it was too long to wait. She did ask to have her 10 min break extended. I'm guessing that they could have extended her 10 min bread by 5-10 mins and cut back her lunch hour by the same amount, or had her work extra 5-10 mins at the end of her shift. So, plenty of other options to accommodate pumping.

[BelleoftheBallFlagstaff]

I wasn't accused of sending a virus but when I sent the link to my friends and family it no longer linked to the article I was referring to but instead something about abortion or w/e. I was completely embarressed to have linked to that as it made my email seem like a meaningless spam forward :(

Weird! That has never happened before!

[firsttimemama]

Does anyone know if Totes has responded to all the email with a statement yet?

[sansdieu]

I am still appalled that women have to pump in restrooms (and not just at small companies, either!). I always considered myself lucky that my co-workers took turns letting me pump in their offices (I share my office with 2 others). Then, once, I was at a conference in another building (hosting state government offices), and they let me use their lactation room -- with a sink, pillows, rocking chairs, and, I thin, some music. Wow!

So, I think, as part of the "reparations", Totes should provide lactation rooms for all their BF employees (music optional ;)). So no other Totes employee would have to pump in a restroom ever again!!

[goldenpig]

Does anyone know if Totes has responded to all the email with a statement yet?

Yes, someone posted this earlier, but here is their response:

http://www.totes-isotoner.com/text/content/custserv/press_releases/Ohio_Supreme_Court_Case_Ruling.html

Basically stating that they are a "family-friendly" company and have plenty of accomodations for nursing mothers, blah blah blah. Sounds rather unapologetic.

[infocrazy]

I am fortunate to have my own office and am staff, so pumping was never an issue for me. If we know all the details in this case, then shame on Totes.

However, this line caught my attention in their response:

"As a matter of corporate policy and employee privacy, totes»ISOTONER does not provide specific information surrounding the employment circumstances of any employee – past, present or future."

There have been many issues at my company for example, when an employee is reprimanded/suspended/terminated and puts out THEIR side of the story, which is often not the whole story, or in a few cases bold faced lies. Management is not permitted to release their side for privacy issues. It makes me wonder if there is more to this case, plus I think it is crazy that this went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court over a mere 15 minutes a day violation.

Now, if the situation is really only that she was refused the ability to take an earlier break, smoking allowed pumping not, etc...then TOTES is clearly in the wrong and needs to make some policy changes.

[ThreeofUs]

It makes me wonder if there is more to this case, plus I think it is crazy that this went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court over a mere 15 minutes a day violation.


I keep wondering about this myself. I guess I'll never know. But Totes is taking a heck of a public image hit for letting this case go to the OSC.


Here's a link to a blogger who looks to have done a pretty good job of researching the case.

http://daniellefriedland.com/post/176520911/ohio-supreme-court-unfamiliar-with-biology

[codex57]

That dissenting opinion was good.

Basically, this case turned on whether breastfeeding is a choice or not. Generally, the major classes protected from discrimination are things in which you have no choice in. Sex, age, race, etc. You can't choose to be one sex or the other. You're born with it. Transgender is iffy, but I'd expect the law would have to carve out a specific additional protection for transgender cuz it normally wouldn't qualify. Not positive on that one.

Anyways, because breastfeeding is a choice, even if everyone agrees it's normally the best choice, it's still a choice. Thus, clearly no gender discrimination under the law. Sorry ladies.

However, Ohio has added protection for pregnancy. Most states do cuz everyone realizes it's a natural extension of protecting the female sex. I think what Totes did violates Ohio's pregnancy discrimination law, but it sounds like (based on what little I've read on this case) that the Ohio Supreme Court got hung up on the "choice" thing and didn't extend breastfeeding to pregnancy. Lost the forest for the trees.

Is Ohio's Supreme Court made up of right wing folks? I hesitate to say conservative cuz "conservative" doesn't fit perfectly with how they voted. This is a VERY pro-business decision.

The other thing is, and I don't know how much this played into it, was that she was a temporary employee. There's a pretty big distinction btw regular employees and temp ones. The court may have been extra hesitant in expanding protections because she was a temp employee. If she were a regular employee, that may have been enough of a factor for them to have gone the other way. Maybe, maybe not, but it likely was at least in the back of their heads.

[Reyadawnbringer]

That dissenting opinion was good.

Basically, this case turned on whether breastfeeding is a choice or not. Generally, the major classes protected from discrimination are things in which you have no choice in. Sex, age, race, etc. You can't choose to be one sex or the other. You're born with it. Transgender is iffy, but I'd expect the law would have to carve out a specific additional protection for transgender cuz it normally wouldn't qualify. Not positive on that one.

Anyways, because breastfeeding is a choice, even if everyone agrees it's normally the best choice, it's still a choice. Thus, clearly no gender discrimination under the law. Sorry ladies.

However, Ohio has added protection for pregnancy. Most states do cuz everyone realizes it's a natural extension of protecting the female sex. I think what Totes did violates Ohio's pregnancy discrimination law, but it sounds like (based on what little I've read on this case) that the Ohio Supreme Court got hung up on the "choice" thing and didn't extend breastfeeding to pregnancy. Lost the forest for the trees.

Is Ohio's Supreme Court made up of right wing folks? I hesitate to say conservative cuz "conservative" doesn't fit perfectly with how they voted. This is a VERY pro-business decision.

The other thing is, and I don't know how much this played into it, was that she was a temporary employee. There's a pretty big distinction btw regular employees and temp ones. The court may have been extra hesitant in expanding protections because she was a temp employee. If she were a regular employee, that may have been enough of a factor for them to have gone the other way. Maybe, maybe not, but it likely was at least in the back of their heads.

Ok, I see your distinction on the whole breastfeeding being a choice and age/sex/race/disability is not. I have thought a bit about this angle myself- but then it doesn't explain why pregnancy is protected and breastfeeding is not?? Again on pregnancy THAT does come down to choice too. While yes I agree that pregnancy is an extention of being female it could be argued (in the same line of logic followed by the OSC) that one does not HAVE to get pregnant. Many women everyday chose not to or unable to. So why then is pregnancy protected and breastfeeding/pumping is not?? It is a CHOICE to be pregnant, just as it is a choice to breastfeed.

Now to follow that line of logic on "Most states do cuz everyone realizes it's a natural extension of protecting the female sex" shouldn't that then mean that breastfeeding should be protected under the pregnancy protection as an extension of pregnancy? Producing milk is a natural occurance for most women after giving birth and just as the right to be pregnant is protected so to should the right to breastfeed.

I don't know if I typed that up right to have it make sense- I am typing fast while DH is bathing DS so I gotta run, but I just wanted to say something about this ridiculous issue.

[goldenpig]

Here's a link to a blogger who looks to have done a pretty good job of researching the case.

http://daniellefriedland.com/post/176520911/ohio-supreme-court-unfamiliar-with-biology

Thanks, that's a great link. I clicked on the Ohio Supreme Court link in that post and it's really eye-opening. Really makes Totes look horrible. And I can't believe the twisted logic that the courts used to decide that breastfeeding is not related to pregnancy and that breastfeeding discrimination is OK because it's a choice and you don't HAVE to breastfeed. OK, well people don't HAVE to smoke either, how come going outside to smoke is OK but pumping is not? :angry-smiley-005:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/oralArguments/09/0311/0311.asp#080845

"Did Firing for Extended Break to Use Breast Pump Violate State Law that Bars Discrimination Based on Pregnancy?

LaNisa Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corp., Case no. 2008-0845
12th District Court of Appeals (Butler County)

ISSUE: Does a state civil rights statute that prohibits workplace discrimination “because of or on the basis of pregnancy” or “any illness arising out of and occurring during the course of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions” require an employer to allow a woman who is breastfeeding to take unscheduled breaks to use a breast pump to express milk at a time when it is necessary for her to do so to relieve physical pain?

In this case, LaNisa Allen was hired by a contract employment agency to work as a general laborer at a Totes/Isotoner Corporation warehouse in West Chester. The position was advertised as temporary, with the possibility of becoming permanent after 90 days. At the end of a new employee orientation session, Allen told the agency supervisor that she was still breastfeeding her five month old child, and would need to pump her breasts to empty them of milk during the work day. Allen asked that the company identify a private area at the warehouse with an electrical outlet where she could perform this activity. The supervisor contacted Allen at home later that day and told her that she had been assigned a 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift and could pump her breasts in the women’s restroom during her lunch break, which was scheduled for 11 a.m.

After starting work at the plant, Allen, whose practice was to breastfeed her baby just before leaving for work at 5:30 a.m. and whose breasts subsequently re-filled with milk in 3-4 hours, found that her 10-minute break at 8 a.m. was too short to allow her to use the pump, but that waiting until her 11 a.m. lunch period caused her to become engorged with milk to the point of physical pain and leakage. After several days of this experience, Allen began taking an unscheduled restroom break at approximately 10 a.m. each day to use the breast pump.

Approximately two weeks after she began taking these breaks, the agency supervisor she had spoken to at orientation came into the restroom and told Allen she was violating work rules by not waiting until her 11 a.m. lunch break to use the breast pump. Later that day Allen met with the Totes/Isotoner supervisor for her work area and asked if her 8 a.m. break could be extended from 10 to 15 minutes to allow her to use the breast pump at that time. After checking with higher management that afternoon, the Totes supervisor called Allen into her office at the end of her shift and told her that the company no longer needed her services. Allen asked if her firing was based on her use of the breast pump, but received no reply.

Allen filed suit in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Totes had fired her because she was lactating, and that action constituted illegal discrimination under provisions of Ohio’s civil rights laws that bar discrimination based on gender and discrimination based on any medical condition arising from pregnancy or childbirth. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Totes, holding that Allen’s extra break time was not a necessary result of pregnancy or childbirth, because women who give birth but choose not to breastfeed their child are no longer lactating five months after giving birth. The court then cited the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2004 decision in DeRungs v. Walmart Stores Inc., which it interpreted as holding that “discrimination based on breastfeeding does not constitute gender discrimination.”

Allen appealed the dismissal of her claims to the 12th District Court of Appeals. The 12th District affirmed the action of the trial court, holding that the issue of whether Allen’s lactation was or wasn’t a medical condition arising from pregnancy or childbirth was irrelevant, because the evidence showed that her firing was not based on her need to pump her breasts, but on the fact that she violated workplace rules by taking unauthorized breaks during her work shift. Allen sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the trial and appellate court rulings.

Attorneys for Allen argue that the DeRungs case cited by the trial court dealt with alleged discrimination against three non-employee customers who were barred from breastfeeding their babies in a public accommodation such as a store or restaurant. They go on to cite language in the DeRungs decision stating the Sixth Circuit’s opinion that similar discrimination based on breastfeeding would constitute illegal gender discrimination if it took place in the context of an employer-employee workplace relationship. They point out that other Totes employees were not required to seek advance permission to take one or more “extra” restroom breaks during a workday when they felt it necessary to relieve bodily discomforts including menstrual symptoms or a need for frequent urination. Accordingly, they say, Allen was treated differently than other employees when she was fired for leaving her work station to relieve significant physical discomfort arising from her lactation, a medical condition that is exclusively caused by pregnancy and is only experienced by pregnant and post-partum women.

Attorneys for Totes/Isotoner cite multiple court decisions that they say have held that an employer’s failure to extend additional leave or otherwise change workplace policies to accommodate women to facilitate the breastfeeding of infants was not discriminatory because breastfeeding does not fall within the definitions of an “illness” or “medical condition” arising from pregnancy or childbirth."

[kijip]

But Totes is taking a heck of a public image hit

Yeah, this is not the kind of exposure a company wants or needs.

[ha98ed14]

That is really, really sad. And disgusting behavior for a company that advertises it's slippers and gloves FOR WOMEN! Glad I never bought any and don't plan to!

[codex57]

Ok, I see your distinction on the whole breastfeeding being a choice and age/sex/race/disability is not. I have thought a bit about this angle myself- but then it doesn't explain why pregnancy is protected and breastfeeding is not?? Again on pregnancy THAT does come down to choice too. While yes I agree that pregnancy is an extention of being female it could be argued (in the same line of logic followed by the OSC) that one does not HAVE to get pregnant. Many women everyday chose not to or unable to. So why then is pregnancy protected and breastfeeding/pumping is not?? It is a CHOICE to be pregnant, just as it is a choice to breastfeed.

Now to follow that line of logic on "Most states do cuz everyone realizes it's a natural extension of protecting the female sex" shouldn't that then mean that breastfeeding should be protected under the pregnancy protection as an extension of pregnancy? Producing milk is a natural occurance for most women after giving birth and just as the right to be pregnant is protected so to should the right to breastfeed.

I don't know if I typed that up right to have it make sense- I am typing fast while DH is bathing DS so I gotta run, but I just wanted to say something about this ridiculous issue.

Ohio specifically extended protection to pregnancy. It normally wouldn't fall under a basic protected discrimination class. Because there was a specific law extending protection to pregnancy, that's why it's protected.

I've got no idea why they didn't extend it to breastfeeding as well. I guess their legislature is made up of people who think BF is "dirty" or something.

[dcmom2b3]

I've got no idea why they didn't extend it to breastfeeding as well. I guess their legislature is made up of people who think BF is "dirty" or something.

I dunno, I recall that Ohio has good laws protecting women's right to BF in public -- I think someone upthread mentioned this.

From what I've read, the question of whether pregnancy discrimination protections extend to lactation was presented, but not decided by the Ohio Supreme Court in this case. The majority opinion side-stepped the lactation issue and based its decision solely on an analysis of the evidentiary burdens of proof that extend to all employment discrimination cases. They found that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof (actually, her burden of going forward with the evidence, but I digress) and the lower court was justified in dismissing her claim.

The concurring and dissenting Supreme Court opinions take the majority to task for not addressing the lactation/pregnancy question.

[amldaley]

That quote from the court's opinion is INSANE. Lactation isn't related to pregnancy? Or gender? Men can do it too, then? See, I wish I'd known that when I was struggling to BF. Could have had DH pitch in and help.

No more Totes for us, either.

Actually, men CAN lactate. They just chose not to. Ok, that may extreme, but technically, they can. There are documented cases where men caring for infact children when mother has been ill or dead have lactated.

I realize that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, just wanted to mention it. I always comment that I have to nurse b/c my husband choses not to lactate. :wink2:

[amldaley]

I haven't read through all the other posts yet, but it sounds to me that either her lawyers failed to prove what was necessary or that the woman did not make arrangements with her employer to take the necessary breaks and, therefore, the break were "unauthorized".

I totally agree that it is absurd, but it doesn't sound like this was as straightforward as "Your breastfeeding? Your pumping? Your fired."

[ett]

I do find it disappointing that her lawyers were not able to make a better case for her. I can't believe that she would be able to last that long without pumping. I wonder if she did ask for an extra break and was not granted one.

[goldenpig]

I do find it disappointing that her lawyers were not able to make a better case for her. I can't believe that she would be able to last that long without pumping. I wonder if she did ask for an extra break and was not granted one.

Well it sounds like she did ask to extend her morning break so she could pump and was then told she was fired:

"Approximately two weeks after she began taking these breaks, the agency supervisor she had spoken to at orientation came into the restroom and told Allen she was violating work rules by not waiting until her 11 a.m. lunch break to use the breast pump. Later that day Allen met with the Totes/Isotoner supervisor for her work area and asked if her 8 a.m. break could be extended from 10 to 15 minutes to allow her to use the breast pump at that time. After checking with higher management that afternoon, the Totes supervisor called Allen into her office at the end of her shift and told her that the company no longer needed her services. Allen asked if her firing was based on her use of the breast pump, but received no reply."