New Laws Protect Pregnant and Nursing Workers

Two new federal laws that President Biden signed on December 29, 2022 will provide more protection for pregnant and nursing workers. While pregnancy discrimination is already illegal, these laws provide additional protection. 

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: This law goes into effect on June 27, 2023 and applies to discrimination claims after that date. This law makes clear that employers with at least 15 employees must provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers unless providing the accommodation would cause an undue hardship on the employer. This makes pregnancy accommodations similar to disability accommodations, but pregnant workers only have to prove pregnancy, not a disability. The requirement of accommodation is triggered by a "known limitation" of pregnancy. 

This law clarifies the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which didn't mention accommodations. The Supreme Court held in 2015 that employers must grant accommodations to pregnant employees if they provide such accommodations to other similarly-situated non-pregnant employees. The cases have been all over the place on this, so this new law makes the requirement very clear.

Cases under this law are handled the same way Title VII claims are handled.

Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act): This law amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers to provide reasonable break times to all nursing employees, and a private place to express breast milk. This law came into effect on December 29, 2022. Employers with less than 50 employees will be exempt if compliance creates an undue hardship. Employees who work remotely have the same entitlement to breaks as other employees and must be able to do so without being observed by employers. 

The Fair Labor Standards Act already provided for break time and private space for most employees, but this law expands that protection to employees who were considered exempt from overtime and remote workers. 

Breaks are only paid if they are less than 20 minutes or if the worker is not completely relieved from duty during the break. 

Employers who break this law or who retaliate can be liable for lost wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, other economic losses, and even punitive damages.

See what happens when you vote well? Keep voting well, and keep fighting for employee rights.

Dear Employees and Job-Seekers: Stop Making These Career-Killing Mistakes

As someone who has handled employee-side employment law for many years, I run into the same frustrating mistakes over and over again. I thought I'd touch on a few that are common so that maybe I can stop you (or a friend or family member) from destroying their career.

Here are the most common career-killing mistakes I see in my practice:

1. Complaining about harassment: This is really the number one problem I see. If you write a long email to HR or your boss complaining that you are being "harassed," you aren't protected against retaliation. While harassment due to race, age, sex, national origin, religion, disability, or another legally-protected category is illegal, just plain "harassment" is not. So reporting it that way doesn't protect you against retaliation. When I ask why people didn't report that they were being treated differently than coworkers of a different race, sex, etc. they usually say something like, "I didn't want to go there." Well, if you'd gone there, firing you for your complaint would have been illegal. But firing you for saying you were harassed or bullied: not illegal.
2. Disclosing pregnancy or disability during interviews or applications: So many people think they have to disclose a pregnancy or disability right up front when they're job hunting. And I know many misguided TV shows portray failing to do so as somehow dishonest. But disclosing pregnancy or disability before you get a job offer mostly means the offer will never happen. You need to disclose after you get the offer, and only if you need accommodations such as time off for doctor's appointments. If the job offer is withdrawn after you seek accommodations, you might have a discrimination case.
3. Failing to put in for intermittent Family and Medical Leave: If you have worked at least a year and your employer has at least 50 employees, odds are you qualify for FMLA. If you need periodic time off for doctor's appointments, to care for a family member, to adjust your medications, or other medical reasons, then put in for intermittent FMLA. That way, you are legally protected against having those absences, latenesses, or leaving early held against you. I'm not sure why many employees are so hesitant to put in for FMLA when they or a family member have a serious medical condition. FMLA is there to protect you. Use it.
4. Failing to report sexual harassment in writing: If the boss or a coworker is hitting on you, making inappropriate comments or touching you, report it under the company's sexual harassment policy, but do so in writing. Otherwise, I find that HR will almost always denied that you made any legally protected complaint. They'll claim you complained about unfair treatment or harassment or bullying but never mentioned that it was sexual harassment. 
5. Failing to get out of a toxic environment: If you have a workplace that is making you physically or mentally ill due to bullying or other toxic conditions, get the heck out of there. But do it on your own time. Start looking and keep working. The mere act of job hunting will frequently make the terrible job more bearable.
6. Quitting without having a job lined up: If you let a sexual harasser or workplace bully run you out of a job before you have something lined up, they win. You're letting them put you in an even worse situation. When people tell me the workplace is too stressful and they have to get out, I ask them if they will be more stressed staying in the workplace or whether they will be more stressed being unemployed for 6 months or a year. It's way easier to get a job if you have a job. If you're in physical danger, then get out no matter what. Otherwise, unless you have enough savings to last at least a year while you're job hunting, try to stick out the bad situation while you're looking. Having a large resume gap is often a career killer. Oh, and nobody can actually force you to resign.

Hopefully I've just stopped you from making one of these career-killing mistakes. Tell a friend or a family member. Spread the word.

More Pro-Employee Bills To Watch In The Florida Legislature

To their credit, some Florida legislators are doing their darndest to try to fix Florida's anti-employee legal climate. I wrote about some pro-employee bills filed, and now there are some more to keep an eye on this legislative session:

Banning employer fraud: A bill proposed would make it illegal for an employer to procure an employee's services fraudulently, and also beefs up anti-retaliation provisions for employees who complain about unpaid wages.

Pregnancy discrimination: Two identical bills would add pregnancy to the protected classes under the Florida Civil Rights Act. I'm not sure why this is being done in light of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling last year that pregnancy is already protected.

Overtime: Another bill changing Florida's overtime pay law from 10 hours per day to 8 was withdrawn, but this new bill replaces it.

Bullying: A second bill that would ban workplace bullying has been filed.

Unemployment: A bill that would modify unemployment qualifications is a mixed bag. It would protect victims of domestic violence but also would disqualify disabled employees who turn down a reasonable accommodation offered. Disabled employees will now face a trial over their discrimination claims in the unemployment proceeding if this bill passes. Overall, I think it's more anti-employee than pro-employee.

I'll be keeping an eye on these bills during the session. Wanna bet that zero pro-employee bills will pass? I won't hold my breath that this legislature or governor would do anything to help the majority of its working citizens.

Why You Probably Aren't Getting A $186 Million Check If You Sue Your Former Employer

If you're contemplating bringing a discrimination case against your former employer, you've probably been scouring the Internet for information. You also probably found the recent case where an employee who was the victim of pregnancy discrimination won a $186 million verdict against her employer. You may be seeing dollar signs. Surely your case is worth at least that much.

Or not.

Let's do a reality check. Here are just some of the many reasons why you probably aren't going to end up with a $186 million check from your former employer if you sue:

• Your bosses didn't conspire to fire all the women: While the case had a single plaintiff, the evidence included testimony of a conspiracy to fire all the women. An interesting quote from the story about the case: "'Specifically, it was said to this district manager, women weren't worth a (expletive) to AutoZone. He was offered a promotion if he fired all the women at his stores,' said attorney Lawrence Bohm."
• Your company probably didn't celebrate not having to promote women anymore: Another interesting part of this story is that the company had been under a settlement agreement that had just expired. "During the trial, her lawyers called a former district manager – an ordained minister – who described a meeting with high-level executives rejoicing over the expiration of a previous settlement agreement requiring AutoZone to promote women and track it."
• There's no way this employee is getting a $186 million check: Sure, the verdict is nice. But the judge can reduce the judgment, and likely will. Then there are appeals where all or part of the verdict can get reversed. Even if all goes well, the company could go bankrupt or be uncollectable. If she wants to avoid years of appeals, she might settle. And let's not forget what is likely a 40% or so attorney fee, costs, and taxes.
• You probably don't want to be in court for 8 years: She was demoted in 2006 and then sued. She was fired in 2008. I don't know about you, but if she was unemployed or underemployed for 8 years, that's an extreme hardship. Do you have the will and the patience to go back and forth to depositions, hearings and a trial for 8 years? What about 2 - 3 years of appeals, or more? Do you have the ability to pay the costs of court reporters, mediators, and other costs for 8 years of legal proceedings? Most people would say no to all these questions. 
• Your facts are different: Every case is different. The facts of your case are different from everyone else's facts. Your witnesses and evidence are different. You can't compare yourself to the sky-high verdict cases that get all the big publicity. Most discrimination plaintiffs simply don't get that kind of money. 
• You could lose: How risk-averse are you? Because nobody can guarantee what a judge or jury will do. You could get zero, or even end up paying the other side's fees and/or costs.
• It was California: Unless you live in California, you won't get a California jury. California is unique in the level of workplace protections it provides. Jurors there are used to having rights. In most states, you'll have jurors who are resigned to having few workplace rights.

Going through a lawsuit is long, drawn-out and expensive. If you're thinking about suing, you need to prepare yourself realistically for what to expect, how long it will take, and that you could end up with nothing. I know it's fun to dream about lotto-sized verdicts, but talk to an employee-side employment lawyer in your state about your case to get a real assessment of your chances.

Pregnancy Covered By Florida Civil Rights Act, Supremes Rule

This being Florida, I expect bizarre court cases from time to time. However, the Florida Supreme Court has restored my faith (for now) that sanity will eventually reign. Two years ago, the Third District Court of Appeal, which covers Miami, ruled that pregnancy discrimination was not discrimination based on sex. Fortunately, the Fourth District, covering my home county, ruled the other way. This let the Florida Supremes decide which was right.

They just ruled, and they found that the Florida Civil Rights Act, which covers sex discrimination, but doesn't mention pregnancy, makes pregnancy discrimination illegal. Here's what they said:

Liberally construing the FCRA to further its purpose to ensure that the women of this state are free from discrimination based on their sex, § 760.01(2)(3), Fla. Stat., we conclude that discrimination based on pregnancy is subsumed within the prohibition in the FCRA against discrimination based on an individual’s “sex.” As the Minnesota Supreme Court held regarding its state law that at the time “prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, but did not specifically mention pregnancy and childbirth,” pregnancy discrimination is subsumed within sex discrimination, as “[a] woman should be no more burdened than a man if she chooses to combine the roles of parent and employee, simply because the woman must bear the child.” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. State, 289 N.W.2d 396, 398, 400 (Minn. 1979). To conclude that the FCRA does not protect women from discrimination based on pregnancy—a primary characteristic of the female sex—would undermine the very protection provided in the FCRA to prevent an employer from discriminating against women because of their sex.

 So common sense wins the day. Congratulations to every pregnant woman in Florida, who is now protected against discrimination under Florida law. Kudos to the lawyers who fought for the women of Florida and won. You just changed the world for the better.

Donna's Employment Law Predictions for 2014

Last week I revealed how I did on my predictions for 2013 (pretty darned good, if I do say so myself). Today, I look into my crystal ball for 2014. Here's what I see on the horizon:

1. Minimum Wage: Raising the minimum wage will be a hot political issue in 2014. We saw some movements in 2013 to make significant increases, and that will continue. Unless something drastic happens in the midterm elections, it's doubtful we'll see anything significant on the national level, but look for more states to increase the minimum wage to the $ 9 - 10 range. Some may go even higher, like Seattle's move toward $15. Raising the minimum wage is great for the economy. Unlike trickle-down economics, it gets money circulating quickly. Henry Ford had the right idea: pay your employees enough so they can buy your products.
2. Legalize It: Legalized marijuana will spread to more states, creating some confusion for employers. Can they fire employees who test positive, like Colorado? Or will their state prohibit firings for legal marijuana use like Connecticut, Arizona, Rhode Island, Maine, Colorado and New York? Colorado has a law, as do other states, prohibiting firing/discrimination for legal off-duty activities, so watch for some litigation over this issue there. Look for marijuana growers and sellers to push for laws like tobacco users have in several states protecting them from discrimination at work. In the meantime, medical marijuana users will seek protection under the ADA and other disability discrimination laws.
3. Health Care: ObamaCare kicked in and it will change the way we look at health insurance. Sure, it isn't ideal. But when a million or so people who've never had health insurance or who haven't had it in years suddenly can get medical treatment, they'll start to expect to be treated like human beings instead of human waste. From here, we'll be very close to an upheaval in the way we deal with health insurance. This year, we'll see some confusion as the regulations kick in, some stupid employers dumping insurance and cutting people to part-time to avoid paying insurance, but the employer mandates have been delayed until 2015, so most of the stupid employer activity will be at the end of the year and into next year. I say that employers who do this are stupid because they'll ultimately lose good employees. With more people covered, there will be more health care jobs available.
4. Internships Cut: With employers under attack for unpaid internship programs that don't actually educate the interns and replace regular employees, some programs will simply disappear. That's not all bad, since the interns-as-slaves programs need to die. We'll see better internship programs cropping up, ones that are truly educational, or paid internships. But most of the new programs will start up after this year. This will be a year of lost programs. We'll also see some attempts to put interns under the protection of discrimination and sexual harassment laws. Some may succeed on the state or local levels, but there's no way that happens on a national level with Congress as it is currently configured.
5. Failed Again: Attempts to pass anti-bullying laws and the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act will fail just like they do every year.
6. NLRB and EEOC Cut Off By Courts: NLRB and EEOC will continue to try to expand the protections employees have. Courts will continue to stop them. Still, they'll inch forward with some new progress for employees. Baby steps.
7. Lip Service: While the midterm elections kick in, we'll hear lots of big proposals to help employees. Little or nothing will pass due to gridlock. Failures will include the FAMILY Act, Arbitration Fairness Act, and ENDA. However, the fact that each of these bills will be blocked will become fodder to take down some of the more anti-employee members of Congress. Maybe 2015 will see some progress.
8. Background Checks: EEOC's efforts to demonstrate that criminal background checks have a disparate impact on blacks have been pretty well crushed so far. However, there will continue to be efforts to ban credit checks. More states will ban or limit use of credit information in hiring. The federal efforts to do so will fail. More states will pass ban-the-box laws barring many inquiries about arrest and conviction records in job applications. There is zero chance such a law will pass on the federal level this election year.
9. Pregnancy Discrimination: The issue of whether pregnancy is covered under the Florida Civil Rights Act will be resolved one way or the other by the end of the year. I think the Florida Supreme Court will say it is already covered. If not, then the legislature will pass a fix. The difference will be for all those women caught in between. If the Court doesn't rule for employees, lots of new moms who thought they were covered and sued under state law will be out of luck. Rule wisely, Supremes.
10. LGBT Protections: States and local governments will continue to pass discrimination laws banning LGBT discrimination. The feds will fail again, but EEOC will continue to push for application of existing law to LGBT employees.
11. Religious Discrimination: Religious employees will push the limits on their ability to proselytize and pray at work. There will be a disconnect between the right to practice religion vs. the right not to be harassed for not sharing a religion and also LGBT rights. Look for right-wing religious groups to push the argument that religious discrimination laws allow them to speak out against gay rights in the workplace. In an election year, we'll see extreme positions pushed on both sides.

Well, that's it for my predictions. I think this year will be one where employees start to wake up to how few rights they have and start to push for more. Major change will come only with a change in Congress.

Court Says Lactation Is Related to Pregnancy, Refrains From Saying, "Duh"

I wrote about a really stupid case out of Texas where a federal court said that "lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition," and thus decided that "firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination."  I was irked, to say the least. Lactation not related to pregnancy and childbirth? Really?

Well, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which, to its credit, refrained from saying, "Well, duh," has unanimously ruled that lactation is, indeed, related to pregnancy and is therefore covered by Title VII. EEOC reports this about the decision: "The Fifth Circuit noted the biological fact that lactation is a physiological condition distinct to women who have undergone a pregnancy.  Accordingly, under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, firing a woman because she is lactating or expressing milk is unlawful sex discrimination, since men as a matter of biology could not be fired for such a reason. The case was remanded back to the lower court for a trial on the merits."

Personally,  I think the 5th Circuit should be applauded, not only for its common sense, but for the fact that it did not openly mock the lower court's ruling. I wouldn't have had that much self-control.

I should also point out that almost all employers are required to provide nursing mothers with break time to pump breast milk, along with a private space that isn't the restroom to do so. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires this, so employers who fire moms for lactating may also run afoul of this law, even if they aren't large enough to be covered by Title VII.

I rarely get to say this, so: Hooray for common sense in the courts!

No Flu Shot? That's a Firing

Did you hear the latest story about 150 people fired for not getting a flu shot? That's right. An employer fired 150 healthcare workers the day before Thanksgiving (doesn't this story keep getting better?) because they mandated each and every employee get a flu shot and these 150 folks didn't do it.

I can't think of anything much more intrusive than requiring an employee to insert something unwillingly into their bloodstream, but there is a growing trend in the healthcare industry to do just that.

Sue the bastards, you say? Hmm. I'm not so sure they would win. In general, requiring vaccines of health care workers is legal, and in some states it is required. Some legal ways employees might get out of having the vaccine:

Collective bargaining agreements: vaccinations are definitely considered a “term or condition of employment” that must be bargained for if the workplace is unionized. Employers can commit an unfair labor practice if they impose them unilaterally in a unionized workplace.

Religious accommodations: protections against religious discrimination include any sincerely held religious or spiritual belief. EEOC recently issued an informal discussion letter on this topic. They offer this advice on whether a practice or belief is “religious” such that it is covered by discrimination laws: “Therefore, whether a practice is religious depends on the employee's motivation. The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons (e.g., dietary restrictions, tattoos, etc.). Applying these principles, absent undue hardship, religious accommodation could apply to an applicant or employee with a sincerely held religious belief against vaccination who sought to be excused from the requirement as an accommodation. At the same time, it is unlikely that "religious" beliefs would be held to incorporate secular philosophical opposition to vaccination.”

Disability accommodations: EEOC says that mandatory vaccinations must still accommodate disabilities. They’ve issued a fact sheet on pandemic preparation. Their fact sheet includes this information:

13. May an employer covered by the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 compel all of its employees to take the influenza vaccine regardless of their medical conditions or their religious beliefs during a pandemic?

No. An employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine. This would be a reasonable accommodation barring undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). Similarly, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (“more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).(36)

Generally, ADA-covered employers should consider simply encouraging employees to get the influenza vaccine rather than requiring them to take it.

Pregnancy: If vaccinations are contra-indicated due to pregnancy, then the employer must accommodate the pregnancy the same as they would any other medical condition. In the informal discussion letter I mention above, EEOC says this about pregnancy: “In the scenario you pose, a pregnant employee might allege disparate treatment under the PDA and/or Title VII if an employer refused to excuse the pregnant employee from a vaccination requirement but permitted non-pregnant or male employees to be excused from the requirement on other grounds, such as having a medical condition that was a contra-indicator for the vaccination.”

Lots of people think this kind of intrusion is outrageous. I'm not sure where those folks were when their states passed laws mandating vaccines.

So what do you think? Should a private employer be allowed to require employees to have vaccinations? If so, what's next? Can they do a cavity search for drugs and office supplies? Require you to have a vasectomy? Where does it end? When does Congress step in? My guess is that employer intrusions will only get worse for employees, and that Congress will do nothing about it for years to come.

Lactation Is Not Caused By Pregnancy or Childbirth, Says Judge

Employment law is a weird field to practice in. Just because something is obvious doesn’t necessarily mean the courts are going to find that it’s so. A recent case is a prime example of the Twilight Zone that is employment law. The judge in that case ruled, “lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” Really?

Okay, so when I managed to nurse my two children, the milk that miraculously emerged from my body had nothing to do with having been pregnant or having given birth. Good to know. Better toss all those What to Expect When You’re Expecting books now, because the judge says they’re all wrong. The court didn’t say what they thought did cause lactation. I’m waiting with bated breath for that decision.

Backing up, I guess I’d better tell you what the case was about. A woman went on approved maternity leave. When she was ready to return, she mentioned that she wondered if she could use a back room to pump milk. Suddenly, her boss hemmed and hawed and said they’d filled her job because she’d abandoned her position. I can just see him shuddering. Breast pumping? Eww. Gross.

Long story short, she lost her case for pregnancy discrimination. The law says that discrimination because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is illegal. EEOC was pretty sure that lactation was related to pregnancy or childbirth (probably because of all those pesky books that said so). So they sued on her behalf.

The law, at least in the Southern District of Texas, is that, "Even if the company's claim that she was fired for abandonment is meant to hide the real reason - she wanted to pump breast-milk - lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition." Courts in the 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit, 6th Circuit, and Colorado have also declined to find Title VII/Pregnancy Discrimination Act protection for nursing mothers under various circumstances.

Fortunately, this case involved a firing that happened in 2008. Yes, the justice system is ridiculously slow (she didn’t even get to trial in all that time – this was a summary judgment). Things have changed a bit since 2008, thank goodness. Twenty-four states have laws protecting women from breastfeeding discrimination at work. Congress finally woke up in 2010 and passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which, among other things amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employers to provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child's birth each time such employee has need to express milk, and a private place other than a bathroom for her to do so.This new law only applies to employees who are not exempt from overtime.

Exempt employees in 26 states (my own Florida being one) are still apparently in the Twilight Zone where they may be subject to lactation discrimination if the judges in their state think lactation isn't caused by pregnancy or childbirth.

Donna’s tips:

a. If you are on maternity leave and getting ready to return, don’t assume that you can’t be fired for breast pumping.

b. If you are salaried and your employer considers you exempt from overtime, you might not be protected under FLSA. However, many employees are misclassified. If your employer gets this wrong, you might also have overtime claims as well as claims for breastfeeding discrimination.

Think Sexism Doesn’t Exist? Read This

I did a post on AOL Jobs about family responsibilities discrimination, and wow, was I shocked at the comments. When people get to comment on the Internet anonymously, their mental filter gets set in the “off” position sometimes. I know some judges and my colleagues on the management side think these kinds of attitudes don’t exist anymore. But employers tend to be on their best behavior in front of their lawyers and in court. They’re shocked that they could be accused of such a heinous act.

Well, here’s what some of those corporate clients and management-side discrimination defendants really think. Even after 25 years of practicing employment law, I didn’t expect employers and managers to post comments like these. I left off the user names to protect the guilty, but you can go to the post and see them for yourself.

How would you like to have this guy as your boss?:

Maybe you should have thought of that before you spread your legs and became a walking sperm bank. If you can't afford to take the time to deliver a baby, maybe you can't afford to have a child at all. A business is an entity designed to produce a product or service in order to produce a profit. It is not a social service agency, a rehab agency, or a day care. The business was not created in order to create jobs. The jobs come as a result of the success that the company has enjoyed as a result of producing it's product or services. You do not have a right to co opt my business interests in order to facilitate your desire to procreate or your failure to control your desires. Just keep pushing this feel good stuff onto business and watch your jobs flee to China and India.

Or this one?:

Pregnancy is a very temporary medical condition. But soooo many women take full advantage of it in the workplace and elsewhere, demanding to be treated in special ways and to be given a lot of slack when it comes to work production, dependability, reliability, attendance, and/or tardiness. This puts a lot of extra work on the shoulders of non-pregnant workers and the managers. "Is Susie Broodmare going to show up for work today? Or will she say she has to leave four hours early for a doctor's appointment for the third time this week? Will she say she feels uncomfortable so can't do her job at all today but expects full pay?" It's well past time for pregnant women to be held accountable for their decision to get pregnant so that it doesn't adversely affect others, especially in the workplace.

Susie Broodmare. How lovely. I wonder if that’s what he calls them in the exit interview.

This guy better have a very small company or he’s a defense lawyer’s nightmare:

As an employer, I think the running of my business comes before your personal problems and if I think I can hire someone better than you, more dedicated than you, with no medical or family problems, you're fired. Take responsibility for yourself and don't expect your employer to subsidize your lifestyle choices. Want to take off 12 weeks to have a baby? Than you better be absolutely brilliant at your job if you expect it to be there when you come back. Otherwise, someone else will be sitting in that chair. I don't owe you anything but the pay check you worked for and whatever else we agreed on when you were hired. Nothing more.

How about this one?:

This is pretty incredible. So I can apply for a job with a great big baby-belly and say, "I saw your help wanted sign, so I'm applying for your 15th position. Here's the deal. I'll let you train me and pay me, then as soon as I'm "line-ready" I'm taking off for as long as I see fit to have my kid leaving you short an employee AGAIN" and any business I walk into HAS to hire me or risk government BS? It's no wonder the corporate world is getting the Hell out of America!

This one is a real charmer, and smart too: “I dont think YOU have right in working in somebodyelse Company, than you become pregnant. Its your businnes and your partner businnes.. once you step out.. you need to use what you save. No mercy. Let's be real..... You want family (boths) have pay the price...”

This one posted lots of comments. Here are some of my faves: “Noone else but the employee is responsible for making sure that they are ready and able to work. If you want to work for a company with very lax absentee policies, then go find one. Society suffers when we have to assume the responsibility for those who do not prepare and plan for pregnancies/illness etc.”

AND

If they can't afford it, they shouldn't get pregnant. What ever happened to PLANNING a family? If one had to sacrifice and reduce a lifestyle, then that is what has to happen. Society cannot bear the responsibility for individuals. A womans husband can provide the income while she goes through pregnancy. Now we most certainly have couples who PLAN pregnancies knowing that they will get time off and other considerations, thus burdening our economy.

This one doesn’t like you if you’re pregnant or disabled: “If you have a family AWESOME!! But ON THE JOB! If at any time I feel your physical condition or health will impeede your ability to work efficently and professionaly then I will either let you go or simply not hire you.”

AND “If you are pregnant Sorry NOT hiring you. Not because I am thinking "oh god I will hire them only to loose them" But because again in MY business it is a safety issue. I can not afford the insurance claim if a dog jumps on you and hurts you or your unborn baby.” (He’s identified himself enough that some lawyer is probably issuing a subpoena for his IP address as we speak).

Bravo, management. Bravo. I hope your employees figure out you posted these comments and sue the stuffing out of you.