totes/Isotoner Fires Woman for Pumping at Work, and It’s NOT Discrimination!?!
When LaNisa Allen appealed her termination for taking unscheduled breaks, she probably thought it was a clear-cut case of sex discrimination. After all, Allen was only taking breaks to pump breastmilk for her infant at home. Something that, you know, only WOMEN do.
However, in the case of Allen vs. totes/Isotoner Corp., the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld Allen’s termination, ruling that Allen couldn’t prove that Isotoner, by calling her breaks to pump a “failure to follow directions” and firing her for it, was, in fact, discriminating against her based on her sex.
- » See also: Fleurville Bags: Eco-friendly, Family-friendly…and Sexy?!
- » Get Eco Child’s Play by RSS or sign up by email.
Because men wouldn’t be allowed to take breaks to pump their breastmilk, either.
Oh, wait…
The Supreme Court of Ohio also claims that Allen’s dismissal wasn’t dicrimination based on pregnacy, because Allen wasn’t pregnant.
Discrimination based on the product of a pregnancy, perhaps?
Allowing women to pump at work encourages them to feed their children with breastmilk, raising healthier babies that cost less to insure. Allowing women to pump at work permits them to work more productively, and for longer hours. Allowing women to pump at work keeps them from becoming engorged or getting mastitis, which will make them less productive and also cost insurance money.
But, of course, if you just fire a woman who wants to pump at work, why, then you could hire a man to replace her, and then you won’t have to worry about pumping at all!
Well, at least Allen didn’t have her parental rights terminated for refusing an unnecessary c-section.
For another take on the case, check out the Salon article on Allen vs. totes/Isotoner.
I bet totes/Isotoner would just love to hear your opinion. While you’re emailing them, tell them that my grandma just looooooves their houseshoes.
Wow, that’s just so wrong. Somebody in the Ohio legislature needs to introduce a bill to extend moms there the same kind of legal protection we have here in CA. Unless giving a break would “seriously disrupt the operations of the employer”, it has to be done. And I’d have a hard time believing that Ms. Allen’s breaks would qualify as a “serious disruption”. If she were an ER doctor or a firefighter, I could see that. But working at a shoe factory?
Well I am officially not buying anything more from that company. Perhaps a product listing would be helpful toward that end, if you believe in blacklisting such companies(?)
I hope ppl pass the word about this crazy bull….I will never again buy any of their products…I hope she sues their pants off!!!