Skip to main content

HCS Medical Staffing Ordered to Pay $148,000 for Pregnancy Discrimination by Owner

EEOC Prevails in Case on Behalf of Bookkeeper Fired After Having a Child

MILWAUKEE – A federal judge has ordered a Milwaukee medical staffing company to pay $148,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination case filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.

The EEOC’s suit charged that owner of HCS Medical Staffing, Inc. discriminated against Roxy Leger, the company’s bookkeeper, in violation of federal law, when he made offensive comments about her pregnancy and fired her because she needed to take maternity leave following the birth of her son .

Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. HCS Medical Staffing, Inc., Civ. 11-CV-402) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in April 2011, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

After HCS failed to respond to a court order to retain an attorney, the court entered a default judgment against the company on Feb. 17, 2012. The court ordered the employer to pay Roxy Leger back pay plus pre-judgment interest in the sum of $48,340; compensatory damages in the sum of $50,000; and punitive damages amounting to $50,000; totaling $148,340 in damages against HCS Medical Staffing.

Judge J.P. Stadtmueller found that the “circumstances leading up to HCS's discriminatory termination of Leger were inherently humiliating and caused Leger substantial emotional distress. The circumstances surrounding Leger's notification of termination were equally degrading.”

The judge found that HCS's owner, Charles Sisson, referred to Leger's pregnancy as a joke; insisted that maternity leave should last no more than a couple of days; suggested that Leger's pre-natal appointments were a ruse for additional time off or for money; and gave Leger an offensive graphic diagram of a machine which would allegedly allow Leger to return from her maternity leave sooner. With no prior warning or discipline, HCS terminated Leger's employment and health insurance while she was still in the hospital recovering from a Caesarean section. Leger learned of her termination days later by certified mail.

In addition to the monetary relief, the judge ordered that HCS Medical Staffing be permanently enjoined from engaging in any further pregnancy discrimination.

“The conduct at issue in this case was deplorable,” said EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson. “Pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination. It is flatly prohibited by law. Working to stop it remains a high priority for the EEOC.”

Hendrickson noted the Commission held a meeting on Feb. 15, 2012, in Washington, in which the Commissioners heard testimony that unlawful discrimination based on pregnancy and caregiving responsibilities remains a widespread problem. Material from this Commission meeting can be found at www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/2-15-12/index.cfm.

The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota and South Dakota, and operates Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

Comments

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.

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...

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 ...