ON TIME ON TIME ON TIME BUSINESS MANAGEMENT A+ WORK, ON TIME, NO PLAGARIZING; ON TIME

1

4

Peer Reply Guidance

· Reply to the main posts of two (2) different peers on different days throughout the week. Both responses should be original and substantive and encourage discussion and critical thought by proposing a different point of view or clearly elaborating on or asking an analytical  question about at least one (1) point of issue of your peer’s post, (Note: "what do you think?" "do you agree?" and the like, are not analytical questions.)

Respond to Faith (No more than 150 words)

While reviewing the simulation, I found evidence of pregnancy discrimination by AlderleyCare. Mavis gave her employer about 6 months' notice about her pregnancy and that her anticipated due date was in August. She proposed a solution that could help the business (hiring a replacement for the person leaving so she could train them while she was still working). She also assured Bigly that she would ensure that her team was prepared during her absence. Instead of cooperating with Mavis, Bigly and Carlee made Mavis’ transition more complicated and began using her appointments against her. However, Title VII, the PWFA, and PDA all prohibit discrimination against pregnancy and related medical conditions. Additionally, AlderlyCare has an internal maternity leave policy that allows employees up to 8 weeks of unpaid leave and their original position upon return.

Bigly offered to give Clyde’s position to Mavis upon her return from leave; however, this would be a demotion, and under AlderlyCare policy, she would retain the same level position. When Clyde suddenly left due to a heart attack in July, Mavis was stuck with both his duties and her original duties. This seems like retaliation from Bigly because he wanted Mavis to take a job with fewer responsibilities, so he offered to give her Clyde’s job again and reduce the workload of being a department head. She continued to uphold her end of the deal, but Carlee and Bigly continued to make her transition difficult. Although due dates are generally close to the baby’s arrival, it is hard to know exactly when the baby will be born. Mavis gave birth about a week and a half early from her originally planned due date. Bigly terminated her employment because she left “tasks incomplete”, even though she completed the tasks the best she could and she submitted them to Carlee on time for review.

Additionally, the PIP she received was due to pregnancy appointments, which she notified her workplace about. It seemed that they wanted her to settle for the demotion and instead used her pregnancy and surrounding appointments against her performance. Mavis never had a history of poor performance until her pregnancy was announced, and then she was unlawfully discharged following the birth of her child.

My take-away lesson from this case study is to review company policies, as well as laws and regulations, before making a decision. If Bigly and Carlee had reviewed the AlderlyCare policy, they would have understood what benefits Mavis was entitled to. I also think they could have clarified expectations for leave, appointments, and unfinished work through written counseling. Mavis gave her employers adequate time to make decisions to fill the employment gaps, but they chose to burden her with the work instead. If you have an employee facing a similar situation and anticipate a personnel gap, start working on solutions as soon as possible. She had about 6 months to train someone for Clyde’s job, while Clyde could’ve stepped in to help with some of her tasks so she could focus on training.

Respond to Gagnon (No more than 150 words)

As someone who's currently pregnant and working, this case really hit home for me. Thankfully, my own experience at work has been very different from Mavis's.

I think there's strong evidence of pregnancy discrimination here. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is part of Title VII, and it says that discriminating because of sex includes discriminating because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions. Pregnant employees have to be treated the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. AlderlyCare has 49 employees, well over the 15 the EEOC says are needed for coverage, so it's covered even though it's too small for the FMLA. Title VII also says an employee only has to show pregnancy was a motivating factor in the decision. It doesn't have to be the only reason, and that makes Mavis's case stronger.

What stands out to me is how fast things changed. In December 2023, Carlee's review said Mavis was meeting expectations and had pulled the department together. Then Mavis shares her pregnancy, and Carlee's first reaction is worry about being short-staffed. Bigly follows up by asking if Mavis is even coming back, adding that "many women don't," and offering her Clyde's lower position. Mavis says in writing that this is a demotion because she's pregnant. That matters, because Title VII also protects people from retaliation for objecting to what they reasonably believe is discrimination, so everything that came after gets a harder look. The Lipsky Lowe article on subtle signs of pregnancy discrimination lists a demotion or reduced responsibilities, sudden changes in management's attitude, and unfair evaluations after an announcement. The case has all of them. Mavis got a PIP for being late twice and missing a meeting for a doctor's appointment, and Carlee admitted it was pregnancy related. Then Bigly doubled her workload with no extra pay, and fired her two days after her water broke. The termination letter blames the PIP, which ended fine, and her "refusing" a lesser role, which is really just the demotion offer. The report was also nearly done. Mavis asked for feedback twice, Carlee took twelve days to respond, and then asked for it "tomorrow," the same day Mavis went into labor.

For testimony, I'd depose Bigly first since he made the comments and signed the termination letter. Carlee is next, because she admitted the PIP was pregnancy related, praised Mavis's work, and sat on the draft. Mavis's husband Jason could testify about the voicemail and timing. I'd also want Lois from the Q-Z department, who told Carlee how impressed everyone was, the department scheduler Mavis left word with about her lateness, and Mavis's four direct reports, who can say whether she left them without direction. For written evidence there's the December evaluation, the February 14–21 emails, the maternity leave policy, the March PIP notes, and the leave records showing she used only six days. The July 31 and August 6 emails with the draft attached, Carlee's August 12 notes, the voicemail transcript, and the termination letter round it out. I'd also ask for records showing how AC treated other employees with late arrivals or unfinished projects. With no HR department, I suspect their documentation is thin.

AC will probably argue performance, but the timing and their own emails make that look like an excuse. The one take-away I'd give businesses is to have someone neutral review any decision about a pregnant employee before it's final. In this case every step from Bigly's first email to the firing came from managers worried about coverage, and nobody stopped to ask whether they were treating Mavis differently because she was pregnant. An HR person or an outside employment lawyer would likely have caught the demotion offer, the PIP, and the termination letter before they turned into evidence.