46 Trial Lawyer • Summer 2022 Persons in Uniformed Services”), plaintiff’s lawyers must point to the legislative history of HB 2341-A (2019) specifying the intention to provide pregnant Oregonians with a “new pregnancy accommodations process and the resulting enforcement” designed “to essentially mirror the same process that already exists for disability accommodations in state statute.” See, e.g., Representative Power Testimony. Intentional discrimination Tonya worked as an electrician in a male-dominated workforce and heard no end to the jokes about her pregnancy, including comments from both coworkers and supervisors such as: “You shouldn’t be allowed to work overtime because you’re pregnant.” “Why are you walking like your 6.5 months pregnant?” “Hut two,” “Pick up your feet,” and “You can do better than that.” “Your boyfriend really should have wrapped ‘it’ up.” Six weeks before her due date, she was fired. At the termination meeting, the owner stated, “Sorry about the bad timing of your termination since I know you have some ‘issues.’” When Tonya asked to what issues he was referring, the owner stated, “Well, you’re pregnant.” As with all discrimination claims, Tonya could use direct and circumstantial evidence such as: • Treating a pregnant worker poorer than nonpregnant counterparts or otherwise deviating from standard policies and procedures. • Timing between an employer learning of the pregnancy and the adverse action. • A negative change in working conditions. • Implausible or untrue statements surrounding the adverse action. • Weak or unbelievable documentation or investigation to support an adverse Pregnant or Trying Continued from p 45 action. • A failure to investigate a pregnant person’s complaints. • Statistical data or similar complaints/ incidences indicating a pattern with pregnant workers. • Evidence of exaggerated or solicited complaints. • Comments that reveal relevant stereotyping or another nexus. Terminating a pregnant worker’s employment in the middle of a pregnancy is a special kind of callousness that often leaves the person immediately penniless and without an earning potential in the midst of this major life milestone. An employer is not always required to pay out an employee’s paid leave banks, and the terminated pregnant person is very unlikely to secure new employment with enough time to qualify for family leave protections or to accrue very much paid time off. That is, if the pregnant person can
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Nzc3ODM=