Skip to main content

HCS Boss Ridiculed Maternity Leave as ‘Vacation,’ Fired Employee Seven Days After C-Section, Federal Agency Charges

MILWAUKEE, Wis. – HCS Medical Staffing, Inc. violated federal law by discriminating against a pregnant employee and then firing her while she was on maternity leave, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed here today.

According to the EEOC’s suit, (EEOC v. HCS Medical Staffing, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-00402), filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Charles Sisson, owner of the Milwaukee medical staffing company, engaged in escalating negative comments about the upcoming maternity leave of HCS bookkeeper Roxy Leger. Sisson’s statements allegedly included insisting that Leger’s pregnancy was a joke, describing her maternity leave as “vacation,” and insisting that maternity leave should be no longer than two days. The EEOC contends that Sisson then terminated Leger, who had no prior negative comments on her work performance, seven days after she gave birth as she recovered from the delivery of her baby by Caesarean section.

Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks compensatory and punitive damages for Leger, an order barring future discrimination and other relief.

“Some employers appear to have gotten the news later than others: taking adverse actions against employees on account of pregnancy has been a violation of federal law for years,” said John Hendrickson, EEOC regional attorney for the Chicago District, which includes Wisconsin. “It won’t wash -- you just can’t do it. The EEOC is in this case to vindicate that principle, to change the way business is conducted at HCS and obtain relief for Roxy Leger.”

Attorneys in the EEOC’s Milwaukee Area Office, including trial attorney Camille Monahan, will lead the agency’s litigation effort. The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, North and South Dakota with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the Commission is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more