Bay County Computer system Category, Inc., 141 F.three dimensional 378 (initially Cir. 1998). Brand new legal during the Troy discover the latest jury was not irrational in the concluding one stereotypes on the pregnancy and not actual employment attendance had been the main cause of the release. Look for and additionally Joan Williams, Composed Testimony of Joan Williams, supra mention nine (sharing examples of comments which can be proof of stereotyping).
Donaldson v. Are. Banco Corp., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1456, 1464 (D. Colo. 1996); pick together with Piraino v. Int’l Direction Res., Inc., 84 F.three dimensional 270, 274 (7th Cir. 1996) (rejecting «surprising claim» by the defendant that zero pregnancy discrimination will be found where challenged action took place shortly after birth of plaintiff’s little one); Pacourek v. Inland Metal Co., 858 F. Supp. 1393, 1402 (Letter.D. Ill. 1994) (quoting Legislative History of new PDA at the 124 Cong. Rec. 38574 (1978)) («[T]he PDA provides a woman ‘the right . . . to be financially and you may lawfully secure prior to, throughout, and you can just after their own maternity.'»).
Discover, e.g., Neessen v. Arona Corp., 2010 WL 1731652, on *eight (N.D. Iowa ) (plaintiff was a student in PDA’s safe class in which offender allegedly didn’t get their unique as the, during the time of their particular app, she had also been pregnant and you will given delivery).
Cmty
Pick, e.grams., Shafrir v. Ass’n off Change Zionists from Are., 998 F. Supp. 355, 363 (S.D.Letter.Y. 1998) (allowing plaintiff to go-ahead having pregnancy discrimination allege in which she was fired during the parental hop out and replaced from the non-pregnant feminine, management had ordered plaintiff to go back to be hired in advance of end from their get off once you understand she couldn’t comply, and you may supervisor allegedly shown doubts in the plaintiff’s interest and you can ability to continue operating after which have youngster).