Woman Says She Was Fired From Restaurant For Having The Audacity To Be A Mom

A new mom says her pregnancy wasn’t the warm and glowing time it should’ve been, because her employers at a restaurant in Chicago picked on her for becoming a parent. And after she had the baby, she claims she was fired from her job as a server and manager amidst nasty comments about breastfeeding.

The woman says things started off bad when she told her bosses about the pregnancy, and got worse from there.

“It’s supposed to be the best time of my life, when I’m pregnant, and it wasn’t,” she told CBS 2, adding that her bosses called her in to talk and suggested they were disappointed that she’d become pregnant.

Then once her son was born, she claims there were remarks about breasfeeding, followed by her getting the ax. She says she wasn’t told why and has filed a lawsuit, claiming discrimination.

However, one of the owners told the station that’s not the case.

“We would never fire anyone because they were pregnant and we didn’t. We support women who have families and continue to do so,” a co-owner said in a written statement, but did not clarify why the woman no longer works at the restaurant.

Woman Claims Bucktown Restaurant Fired Her For Having Baby [CBS 2 Chicago]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

    Hmmm, I wonder which side of this conflict is leaving out the important parts of the story.

  2. TheMansfieldMauler says:

    It’s supposed to be the best time of my life, when I’m pregnant

    Says who?
    If your expectations about life are based on hackneyed cliches and headlines on lifestyle magazines, you are going to end up sorely disappointed. You are not owed a “best time of your life” because you are gravid.

    • jrwn says:

      My wife is on partial bed rest, with 2 young kids. Not the time of her life.

    • Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

      For some women having a child is the best and most satisfying time of their lives. Nothing wrong with that.

      • Doubting thomas says:

        There is nothing wrong with enjoying pregnancy. there is everything wrong with the entitled attitude that your pregnancy must be the bestest most wonderful time of your life and that everyone else should make it so. You didn’t do anything special. You just laid on your back and spread your legs. Chemistry did the rest, now you are an incubator,

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      I love that you used gravid.

      That is all

    • longfeltwant says:

      When she said that, she lost all credibility. I didn’t read any farther. If a person who says something like that has a disagreement with another person, I am going to start out by assuming that first person is in the wrong.

    • RayanneGraff says:

      Agreed. I read that line & was immediately reminded of a bridezilla screaming “You’re ruining MY DAY!!!” at everyone who disagrees with them.

      And I honestly can’t believe that anyone still thinks pregnancy is supposed to be enjoyable. That’s pretty damn LOL-worthy right there.

  3. damicatz says:

    I’ve had to deal with this nonsense before.

    My company got extorted out of $250,000 because we fired a pregnant woman not because she was pregnant but because she was running a side-business on company time and trying to steal our customers.

    Of course, because she was pregnant, that makes her a protected class and she got the shysters involved. And it’s cheaper just to make her go away by paying extortion rather than to spend millions hiring another shyster to litigate.

    So I take all so called “fired for being pregnant” claims with a grain of salt as well as most other so called “employment discrimination claims” because employment discrimination laws are nothing but welfare for bottom-feeding trial shysters. Frankly, it’s a private business and the first amendment gives them the freedom to associate or not associate with whomever they want.

    • Ilovegnomes says:

      Please don’t let one bad apple ruin the bunch. This story could be a legit claim. I remember one employer I had in my past, when there was even talk of a wedding on the horizon, I had a male manager get up in my face and start yelling at me about how I better not get pregnant because he didn’t want to train someone for when I was going to go on maternity leave. I had never even mentioned kids and frankly, whether I wanted them or not, it was none of his business.

    • RandomHookup says:

      “employment discrimination laws are nothing but welfare for bottom-feeding trial shysters” … except for when they are valid protection of employees against discrimination.

      There will always be people to take advantage of the situation, on both sides of the equation.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      The first amendment does not apply here. She is protected by discrimination laws, so the business must defend themselves on the grounds they had a legitimate reason to fire her. If not, then by legal definition it is discrimination.

      As for your situation, the best way to deal with that situation would be to document, document, document, and then wait an appropriate amount of time after the pregnancy to fire her. Or, of course, they could have fought the discimination lawsuit.

      • damicatz says:

        And just who gets to decide what is a “legitimate reason”? It’s not your property and it”s not your business. By what moral right do you claim to dictate to a private business owner whom they must or mustn’t hire or fire? You don’t own the business and you haven’t invested any money in the business or taken any of the risk in running or operating it.

        It is becoming more and more difficult to start a business in this country because of bottom-feeding trial lawyers and their ilk shaking down small business owners who cannot afford to comply with every single asinine regulation that the lawyers in congress have created solely for the benefit of them, the members of the bar associations, and the large corporations who buy the regulations for the purpose of putting smaller competitors out of business (See Regulatory Capture).

        If you think that “documentation” will help you, you are sadly mistaken. Litigation is extremely expensive. It would have cost us millions to litigate and we would have NEVER recouped those legal fees. We HAD documentation and it still ended up being cheaper to settle because the concept of “presumption of innocence” seems to go out the window when the shyster’s pocketbooks are involved.

        • Miss Dev (The Beer Sherpa) says:

          Legitimate : running a side business on company time.
          Not lefitimate : being pregnant

          Also, as someone who lives in a “right to work” state, it didn’t matter how much documentation I had when I was wrongfully fired, the company still stole my unemployment benefits from me.

          While it’s unfortunate that your company decided that it couldn’t afford to fight this ex-employee, remember that there are companies out there that are more than happy to screw hard working people over for little reason. And that businesses are often in a much better position to fight than the individual.

          • rmorin says:

            I have a really, really hard time having any sympathy for you when you don’t understand the basic laws you say allowed companies to “steal” from you:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

            I think you mean “at will employment”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will

            Again, when accusing a company of “stealing” from you, please understand the basic tenets that they allegedly use to do so.

            • RvLeshrac says:

              Right-to-work states are at-will. Right-to-work states are also notoriously bad about bothering to confirm anything, and will deny UI at the drop of a hat. People who are unemployed don’t have the resources available to hire an attorney for a UI hearing.

              • rmorin says:

                Congrats for the most baseless, inane, and prejudicial post today. JennQPublic, tell him what he won …

                Let’s look at actual facts. Only Florida, Georgia, Texas, North Carolina, and Virginia are both “at will” and “right to work”

                States with VERY strong social safety nets and VERY liberal voting populations like Massachusetts and Rhode Island are “at will”

                States with VERY poor social safety nets and VERY conservative voting like Alabama and Mississippi are not “at will”.

                Being an “at will” state has nothing to do with the social safety nets. Your over simplified and factually inaccurate post shows why it can be so difficult to talk about legitimate employment, economic, and societal issues.

        • crispyduck13 says:

          “By what moral right do you claim to dictate to a private business owner whom they must or mustn’t hire or fire?”

          Umm, it’s state law. We’ve decided as a society that discrimination based on certain traits is morally wrong. It would be nice if we could trust that all business owners won’t discriminate when hiring/firing, but people aren’t perfect and we can’t, so there are laws.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          “And just who gets to decide what is a “legitimate reason”?”

          Lawyers, case law, legislators, Congressmen, take your pick.

          I personally take no claim to have any moral right. I wasn’t talking about myself, only what is true under the law.

          The people at large, I suppose, claim the right to protect the less fortunate, the needy, and the populace in general.

          Don’t like it? Go vote about it.

          • Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

            +1

          • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

            Damicatz obviously is a supporter of “right to work” laws, and is probably a “Rand Paul” libertarian. He obviously doesn’t understand how simple it is to set expectations for workers so that when you fire them “for cause” it is obvious. Documentation isn’t that hard, and neither are fair hiring practices. Sure, it would be cheaper if you could say “Pregnant women need not apply” as would discriminating against any other demographic that might cost you more money, (like someone who needs a power-assisted door), but that’s hardly how a social-democracy works. That’s how laissez-faire capitalism works.

            • damicatz says:

              Actually, I am not a supporter of right-to-work laws because they infringe upon a business owner’s right to enter into contracts with unions. If a business owner on his or her own accord wants to require all employees to be members of unions, that is their right to do so. Right-to-work laws are just as wrong as laws that tell a business who they can and cannot hire.

              You obviously have no understanding of libertarianism if you think that Rand or even Ron Paul are libertarians. Ron Paul is a paleoconservative with libertarian leanings but he is no libertarian. Rand Paul is just another garden variety neocon who thinks that the US should lord over the entire world.

              Any expectations between employer and employee need to be set forth in an employment contract. If there is an employment contract and it guarantees you certain benefits and treatments, and you don’t get that, then you have a legitimate case to pursue recompense for breach of contract. In the absence of that, there is no moral case for violating a business owner’s property rights through “discrimination laws”.

              There are plenty of ways to fight discrimination that do not involve the use of coercive force against private property. If you don’t like the fact that a business discriminates against then you can choose not to do business with them. You can also exercise your right to free speech by informing other people, by protesting, and by leading a boycott. Such things can be surprisingly effective (as neocon-in-chief Rush Limbaugh learned) and do not require the use of coercion.

        • RandomHookup says:

          And yet the majority of business owners manage to hire and fire people without getting sued. It’s a pain when it happens, but it’s the risk of running a business in this country (one of the most business friendly environments in the western world).

          • Galium says:

            Business is so friendly in the western world that theusiness people offer to share their pillow with the politicians every night. Then again, it is the same in the eastern world, just more polite.

        • OutPastPluto says:

          You protest far too much.

          Either you can document cause for firing a person or you can’t. You need to stop trying to blame lawyers for all your problems and actually run your business right. If you can’t easily fend off an employment discrimination suit, then you have far bigger problems.

          Your company is clearly out of your control.

        • Janus, Should I laugh or cry? says:

          “It would have cost us millions to litigate and we would have NEVER recouped those legal fees.”

          Millions of dollars, literally?

          Since millions is plural, I’ll assume 2 million dollars. Let’s say that legal fees are $1,000/hour. Would fighting this lawsuit really take 2000 hours to resolve?

      • absherlock says:

        Isn’t Illinois an at-will employment state? That gives her employers a right to fire her for good reason, bad reason or no reason, so long as it’s not an illegal reason. That being the case, isn’t it her responsibility to prove she was fired for discriminatory reasons (since it would be impossible for the employer to prove they fired her for “no reason”)?

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Yes. People seem to be getting confused at my statement – When I say they need to provide evidence, I do not mean at moment of termination. I mean at time of a legal proceeding in which the reason for the termination has come into question.

          • absherlock says:

            Okay, but she’s not supplying evidence, she’s supplying a theory with hearsay as support. That shouldn’t be enough to support bringing the case to trial. It might be enough to warrant an investigation by the EEOC, but then they’d have to find something factual to take it further.

        • Buckus says:

          Even in “At-will” states, you can still sue for discrimination. Federal discrimination laws apply in all states. True, they can just kick you to the curb for any reason (or no reason) but if you feel like you’ve been fired because you’re part of a federally-protected group, then you can still sue.

          • damicatz says:

            Yep.

            Who cares about all of that “equal protection of the laws” nonsense anyways? Let’s create a bunch of classes that get preferential treatment in complete violation of the equal protection clause. I mean, the constitution is only a piece of paper after all.

            And never mind that the fedgov doesn’t even have the constitutional authority to regulate intrastate hiring practices to begin with (that little thing called the 10th amendment).

        • longfeltwant says:

          “so long as it’s not an illegal reason”

          The reason is called “family status”, and it is one of the protected classes.

          I think the list is this: race, color, national origin or ethnicity, creed or religion, age, sex or gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, marital or family status, qualified individuals with physical, sensory or mental disabilities, military or veteran status

    • incident_man says:

      Would you prefer going back to the days where businesses could fire someone because they’re female, non-white, homosexual, or any of the other reasons that would have NO EFFECT on whether or not they can perform their jobs? Wouldn’t want that First Amendment thingy to get in your way of that, now would we?

  4. wagnerism says:

    Her being pregnant could be irrelevant. She could be a bad employee. Her employer could be bad too. Pregnancy is both a convenient excuse and a protected class.

    This should stick if her new duties as a mother made her less productive or flexible for hours.

    • crispyduck13 says:

      This should stick if her new duties as a mother made her less productive or flexible for hours.

      No, it shouldn’t.

      • njack says:

        Yes it should. Being flexible with hours is often a requirement in the serving industry. If she is no longer able to be flexible with her hours, it is possible they continued to schedule her and she continually called in “sick”.

        • crispyduck13 says:

          I guess you didn’t take the time to click on the link. You can’t fire someone for taking unpaid leave for all those reason listed there. That is what that law was made to do. If she was smart she would have used FMLA on her vacation/sick form. If she didn’t know her rights and called in sick as you say, well I don’t know if that screws her or not.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            Actually you don’t have to say it’s FMLA-eligible at the time of the request. It’s protected whether you declare it or not; however, the employer has a better case for termination if they were not informed. In this case, though, the emoployer was aware of her pregnancy and subsequent child-rearing.

      • Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

        Depending on the restaraunt FMLA may not apply. It only applies if there are 50 or more employees.

        This is under the assumption that smaller businesses would undergo an undue hardship granting that much leave. I know our companies (20 and 12 employees) would have a hardship with someone taking that much time off.

        • StarKillerX says:

          Even companies with 50 or more can be adversely effective, especially considering how open to abuse FMLA is.

          My company has about 55 hourly employees, spread across 4 shifts, and a very liberal attendance policy but all those who play the attendance game need to do is have a doctor fill out the FMLA paperwork and they can call off 40 days a year (we are on 12 hour shifts) without being able to be held against them.

          Now keep in mind that because of the 12 hour shifts each person only works 180 days a year and also get:

          2 weeks vacation
          3 personal days
          9 call offs during a rolling 12 month period

          So with FMLA added to the mix they literally could call off 59 of 180 days a year before the company could even dream of terminating them.

          Oh and did I mention with an hourly work force of only 55 people we currently have 5 employees with FMLA paperwork on file.

          • msbask says:

            I’d be really interested to know how your employees can afford 40 unpaid days each year.

            • StarKillerX says:

              Actually for some it’s just another way to game the NYS welfare system.

              By takingso much time off they keep their wages below the level to qualify for various handouts.

  5. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

    Unless the business has a documented justification for her termination, they are completely fucked.

    Firing only one waitress, who happens to have just conceived a child, without any other explanation is discrimination under the law.

    • humphrmi says:

      Actually not. Illinois is an At-Will employment state, firing one employee for any reason or no reason at all EXCEPT discrimination based on membership a protected class is perfectly legal in Illinois. Familial status is a protected class only for housing purposes.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        You miss my point. They don’t have to provide a reason, but once she files suit they MUST provide a reason or the court MUST assume the discrimination is the reason.

        In other words, if it looks like discrimination on the surface, the business must provide an explanation to the contrary or they will lose the case.

        • humphrmi says:

          They can provide any reason at all, or none at all. The onus is on her to prove discrimination. The courts don’t just assume discrimination unless you claim otherwise. There’s plenty of case law on that point. The only exception is, if you can prove that the defendant lied in their reason for firing you, then the courts can assume discrimination, even if the real reason was a non-discriminatory one.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            I don’t agree. But her testimony accompaning the situation and the fact she was fired is probably evidence enough, barring any evidence from the business. So if the business provides nothing, I don’t see how she can lose.

        • rmorin says:

          Did you not read the comment at all? I’ll bold the important parts:

          Familial status is a protected class only for housing purposes.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            You’re under the false impression I thought familiar status was what was in conflict here.

        • JJFIII says:

          You are wrong on so many points, The PLAINTIFF, must prove her case. The defense can say nothing and unless she proves there was some form of discrimination, they do not need to put up ANY defense PERIOD. Go back to law school you moron

    • homehome says:

      Well they said they didn’t fire her. And obviously a chunk of the truth is missing. Don’t know who’s leaving it out, but it’s not that cut and dry.

    • damicatz says:

      In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        You’ll have to qualify that statement with actually information. I’m not going to go through the legal case law.

    • JJFIII says:

      She was NOT pregnant at the time of her dismissal. That is why the article says “A new mother says she lost her job because she had a baby and now she’s taking the matter to court.”
      That would mean she was pregnant BEFORE. She was not pregnant when she was fired, her own claim is she was fired after her pregnancy was completed. Please make sure to read the article. Timing is everything.

    • msbask says:

      What makes you think they don’t have one? Because they didn’t write up a summary for the media?

  6. who? says:

    I worked at a place in the 90′s that had a layoff, and in the course of that one layoff, they managed to lay off every pregnant woman, every woman at the director level or above, every openly gay person, and the one woman who was on maternity leave.

    We managed to get a very nice settlement, but I’ve made it a policy to never work for a company that’s run by members of the Mormon church ever again.

    • TheMansfieldMauler says:

      I’ve made it a policy to never work for a company that’s run by members of the Mormon church ever again.

      Well it’s a good thing they weren’t members of a minority group, because if you applied the same logic then you would be a racist.

      • who? says:

        But they weren’t members of a minority group. They’re self selected members of a cult that spends millions of dollars working to codify discrimination into our laws. They’re welcome to their opinions, and can spend their money as they please, but I don’t need to help them earn the money that they’re spending promoting their anti-gay agenda.

        • pgr says:

          And… just wait till their main man Mr. Flip-Flopper hisself becomes POTUS! Look out, we’ll all be wearing magic underwear and subsidizing his 1% friends while we become less and less affluent and the middle class finally disappears (as they pray it shall under the golden temple in SLC)!

      • RandomHookup says:

        And it’s perfectly legal to be racist, especially if you are just an employee.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      I make it a policy to never work for any church-run organization at all, if I can help it. I can’t work for the biggest one here; they actually have this on one of their organization’s websites:

      “Employees are expected to comply with the generally accepted standards of conduct and life-style of the [church in question]. An applicant will be disqualified for employment if they are not a born-again Christian, do not attend church regularly, or participate in any of the following behavioral activities:

      –Possession or use of tobacco, alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs
      –Profanity or swearing; stealing; sexual immorality (heterosexual or homosexual);
      –Pornographic literature or posters; gambling; attending bars, and dancing”

      I suppose they get away with it by hiring members. If you are a member of the church, they must assume you don’t do any of these things.

  7. easymacfu says:

    I think I’ve figured out the template Consumerist sends to all its writers:

    INFLAMMATORY HEADLINE: _________________________

    Vague, sometimes contradictory statements by alleged wronged party: ___________________

    Lawsuit info: ____________________

    No comment from company due to impending lawsuit.

    PROFIT from ads

    • Coffee says:

      Except for that last part, where there are no ads because The Consumerist is a non-profit under the Consumer Reports umbrella.

    • scoosdad says:

      What ads?

      Profit? You do know who owns this site, right?

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        For awhile, they were taking money from JustAnswers but I haven’t seen any ads from them in awhile.

        • Velkyr says:

          Use the “contact us” form. After you submit something, you get the just ask a lawyer thing

  8. RockerGal says:

    I am currently pregnant, and it is NOT the best time of your life.
    being pregnant SUX!, No roller coasters, (and living next to a amusement park) no Drinks, no Energy drinks, and strangers trying to rub your belly like your friggin buddah!.
    /hormonoal rant

    aside from that, was she trying to breastfeed at work? was she a bad employee?
    missing some major info here..

    • VintageLydia says:

      Im glad I’m not big enough to have the strangers assault my belly, petting it like a puppy. I’m still in that “is she pregnant or just gained a couple of pounds in her belly?” stage and I’m dreading the next few weeks when it’ll be more obvious it’s pregnancy. However, kids can touch my belly all they want because they’re kids and may never had seen a pregnant lady before (so long as they ask first.) Their parents? Back off!

      • RockerGal says:

        good luck with that, they will sneak a rub in there when you least expect it.

        • crispyduck13 says:

          Everything about that situation makes me hate people and not want to procreate. WTF is wrong with people?

      • eldritch2k4 says:

        When my wife was pregnant with our son I heard the phrase “If you want to keep it, keep it off my belly” and related phrasings more times than I care to count. Twas hilarious though.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      Just tell people they can’t rub your belly, because it’s contagious.

      • iesika says:

        When my friend was pregnant, whenever strangers approached her about it she told them she had a large abdominal tumor.

  9. JJFIII says:

    The restaurant is under no obligation, in fact it is BETTER to not give any explanation as to why an employee was fired. They can easily have that done in court. I am pro-breast feeding, but I am unsure how that has ANYTHING to do with her job. Why would management at her restaurant even know if she was breastfeeding or not? If she felt she had to pump or feed the kid during working hours, then they were within EVERY right to fire her for not be able to perform her duties. I am sorry, but if you can not be doing your job at noon or 6 pm in most restaurants, then you are not of any value to them
    For those saying a pregnant woman is a protected class, she was NOT pregnant when she got fired.
    The OP lost all credibility with me for using this line “It’s supposed to be the best time of my life, when I’m pregnant, and it wasn’t,” Who told you this? Maybe you think you would have a mother’s glow, but cramps, vomiting, hemroids, hormonal mood swings and carrying around an extra 20-40 pounds on your back is NOT what most would call the best time of their life, Maybe she should try to make the best time of her life the part where she raises the kid to become a contributing member of society.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      The OP lost all credibility with you because she has the wrong idea about pregnancy? Do you frequently discount claims because of irrelevant issues?

      • Doubting thomas says:

        It is not irrelevant. It is a very telling point about the attitude of the (former) employee. It shows an attitude of entitlement and false expectation. Not good employee traits. It also shows she lives in a fantasy world which creates a lot of doubt as to her claim that the reason she was fired was due to a pregnancy that no longer existed by the time she was fired.

        • AstroPig7 says:

          Some people do have good, relatively easy pregnancies, though. Her entire concept of pregnancy could be based on a handful of women, possibly women who were doted on or otherwise given much support. This doesn’t indicate a sense of entitlement, it’s an emotional punch to her story. Saying &147;my company owes me a happy pregnancy” would be a different story, but that isn’t what she said.

          • Doubting thomas says:

            relatively easy….. Relative to what? Relatively easy is not equal to the best time in my life. She made a ridiculous claim, that revealed ridiculous expectations.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      “The restaurant is under no obligation, in fact it is BETTER to not give any explanation as to why an employee was fired. “

      Sure thing, until they are brought to court of discrimination allegations. When the prosecution brings in evidence of discrimination, and the defense brings nothing, who do you think will win?

      • njack says:

        What evidence did the ‘prosecution’ bring. Also, I am certain there is no prosecutor involved since this is not a criminal proceeding.

      • rmorin says:

        Loias your internet lawyering is faulty today:

        When the prosecution brings in evidence of discrimination, and the defense brings nothing

        Holy crap Loias, this is a criminal case now!?

        Law & Order: Breast.V.U?
        Law & Order: Pregnancy Intent?
        Law & Order: Trial by Belly?

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          You don’t seem to be aware of how FMLA and other discrimination issues are resolved.

          Our HR managers go in to courts of law that aren’t trial courts all the time to present our company’s evidence in regardless to various FMLA and disability issues.

          Not all courts are like the ones you see in movies.

          • rmorin says:

            That’s my point Loias, I’m making fun of you.

            There is no prosecutor in a civil case like this. You are wrong and I am having fun at your expense.

      • JJFIII says:

        1. I guess the “prosecution will need to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt for the “criminal case” that is non-existent
        2. Why would the company address the issue with the media? It is bad policy to discuss your legal strategy so it is broadcast everywhere. I guess you must be one off those lawyers who lets everybody know your defense BEFORE. If so, you would be the worst lawyer ever.
        3. Once you make a claim in the media, THAT can and will be brought up at trial. This woman knows why she was fired, and even if it was because they did not like her clothes, they have every right to do it. She was fired AFTER she was pregnant, NOT PROTECTED.

    • mocena says:

      Nope, in fact they are required by law to provide her with a place to pump if she’s nursing and needs to pump at work and they can NOT fire her for it.

  10. elangomatt says:

    From original article…
    “After Eros was born, she says there were nasty comments about breastfeeding.”

    Ok, first of all who names their kid after the greek god of love?! I kind of wonder why there were nasty comments about breastfeeding. I can’t imagine anyone making nasty comments about how she fed her son outside of work hours. Was she bringing her son work and breastfeeding on the clock? Was she pumping at work and expecting them to store her milk till she got of work?

    • RandomHookup says:

      Maybe not the best choice, but I have seen a number of Greek names in use: Hercules, Socrates, Adonis, Achilles, Zeus, Poseidon, Aphrodite …

    • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

      What’s wrong with breastfeeding your baby at work…. in a bar?

      Sweet Home Alabama:
      http://youtu.be/m3p4wDksnVw

    • Fubish says: I don't know anything about it, but it seems to me... says:

      Please don’t be ignorant. I gew up in a diverse neighborhood with a number of Greek children who were named after Greek mythological or historical characters: Oddyseus, Ariadne, Calliope, and Pytheas.

      • TheMansfieldMauler says:

        Also, Cyclops.

      • elangomatt says:

        Yeah, but were any of them named Eros? I don’t think it is a stupid name because it is a Greek god, I think it is a stupid name since that kid is going to get teased something fierce in school because he’s named after a god of love.

        • Stickdude says:

          If you’re going to name your kid after a Greek god, then at least do it correctly – name him Zeus and all other mortals will bow down in fear.

    • missminimonster says:

      When I was pregnant, I wanted to name my baby Athena if she was a girl.

      But, you’re right, Eros is a bit out there.

  11. daemonaquila says:

    I’d guess she’s leaving out important details like taking excessive time off, getting stupid on the job while she gossips about her pregnancy instead of working, and a lot of other BS that some pregnant women / new mothers do. Anyone who whines “It’s supposed to be the best time of my life” has entitlement issues. If she acts like an ass, fire her.

    I had an employee like this. Most pregnant women, no problem. This one’s productivity dropped to half, she was constantly having drama with the baby daddy during work, she was broke and kept asking for advances, she “had to” spend time on Facebook letting her friends know the latest dirt, etc., etc., etc. No sane person would keep someone like that on.

    • AstroPig7 says:

      Do you often make guesses with no evidence? Of course it’s possible, but it’s also possible she went into a hormonal rage and beat up the manager. How likely it is remains key.

    • mocena says:

      I’d guess that the restaurant is staffed completely by young, drug addicted jerks who have never had a responsibility or rational thought in their lives and who are so high and mighty about their priority of “cocaine above all” that they don’t even pause before mercilessly teasing and ultimately sacking a normal woman who did nothing at all wrong and who belongs in a protected class.
      Of course, I’m basing this on my incredibly limited experience with restaurant workers, so it has about as much weight as your theory.

  12. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    When she was promoted to manager she was asked if she planned to get pregnant. Apparently the owners wanted a full time manager and she announced her pregnancy shortly after the promotion. I don’t know if Illinois or US law prevents the owner from asking the question, if she couldn’t put in the expected hours, or if inability to put in the hours is reason enough for dismissal. .

    • bonzombiekitty says:

      I’m pretty sure you’re not supposed to ask that question.

      • spectacularisms says:

        Bingo! Asking if someone is pregnant or planning to become pregnant in a job interview is not just rude/inappropriate, it’s actionable under federal anti-discrimination laws.

        When I was going through on-campus recruiting during law school, a hiring partner at a big firm got in trouble for asking a woman with an engagement ring if she planned to start a family soon. Many employers don’t realize this or think it’s just small talk, but ignorance of the law is no defense.

    • pot_roast says:

      and people still wonder why businesses have issues hiring women sometimes. It’s because plenty of them do take jobs and leave when they get knocked up.

    • Clevelandchick says:

      Most women, especially in low income/lower middle class income levels with children, go back to work full time after their maternity leave is up – they don’t have a choice if they are the bread winner or their family can’t make it without their income.

      If this story is represented honestly, the restaurant owner decided to boot her the second she told them she was pregnant and no matter how hard she tried, they were either going to make her life miserable to get her to quit or find a flimsy excuse to fire her. And that’s why discrimination laws protecting women, minorities and pregnant women exist.

      The restaurant couldn’t be bothered to accommodate an employee whose work was good enough to make her a manager once she made their lives a tad inconvenient by wanting to have a family instead of existing as their personal slave-b*tch for the rest of her life dying a lonely old childless spinster.

      Which is actually pretty freaking stupid on their part. The restaurant industry has probably the highest turnover rate of any industry, it’s hard to find good employees and a woman who just had a child is going to bust her butt for you because she needs that job to raise her kid. Not to mention the bad publicity/lost business this owner will see for being a jerk.

  13. reybo says:

    Knee-jerkers know all they ever care to know about this, but the true story might be interesting.

  14. dks64 says:

    I bet she was fired for reasons other than her pregnancy.

  15. Ayla says:

    Unfortunately this happens ALL THE TIME. I was nearly fired from my job as a childrens librarian when I was pregnant, I have numerous friends who have lost their jobs, and right now our local charter school is threatening to fire a teacher because she’s pregnant.

    It’s really easy to fire a pregnant woman since there are months between when she tells you she’s pregnant and when she has the actual baby, you can write her up for anything during that time and, bam, you’ve got “justification.”

    It’s sad.

  16. framitz says:

    Maybe the woman was a craptastic employee and they were kind enough to keep her until after the baby was born to help her.

  17. RayanneGraff says:

    Methinks there is a lot of info missing here. Common sense dictates that no company would fire a woman *just* for having a baby unless it was staffed with complete morons who honestly thought that nobody would notice such a thing. I’m willing to bet that this woman was fired for other reasons(which I suspect include an entitled attitude and demanding special treatment) and is now pissed off & looking for retribution.

  18. BennieHannah says:

    There is a lot missing here. In my work experience I’ve been (and known) pregnant workers who performed like any other employee, and if they needed special accommodations they were the kind of employees who had generously supported other employees who needed special accommodations for sick days or sick family members or childcare crises, etc. and were granted the same in their time of need. But those were the places I’ve worked…the places that hired competent, well-vetted people and trusted them to be professional.

    I know there are other businesses out there who use and abuse workers on the theory that they are disposable. With the information given here, it’s difficult to figure out what’s going on.

  19. ILoveBacon says:

    My understanding is that pregnancy is full of vomiting, cramps, aches, sometimes wetting yourself, and frequent fluctuations in mood. If you’re upset that your pregnancy was not the time of your life, you may as well sue reality while you’re at it.

  20. AcctbyDay says:

    No comment yet on the breasfeeding?

  21. CrazyEyed says:

    A business can simply get away with it by saying they had to downsize and save money. Site it for business reasons and it becomes a lot harder to argue. I still believe there is more to the story than what both the OP and the business is saying. I’m sure she’s no angel either. She wasn’t real liked around her co-workers which could say a lot about her co-workers or the fact that she might have some issues of her own.