Generally, women who takeare entitled to return to their jobs under the or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). But that right has limits. Employers experiencing economic difficulties, for example, can cut positions if need be and not worry that it cost the job of an employee who was out on maternity leave.
But beware! If the decision to cut the employee was based on her having taken leave, she can sue.
Make sure you can show why the job was eliminated and why the employee on leave was the one who was terminated. Do that, for example, by showing that she was the last one hired and that you reasonably kept other employees who had worked for the company longer. That’s a legitimate employer policy based on seniority, not discrimination against new mothers.
Recent case: About a month after being hired as a full-time receptionist at a plastic surgery medical practice, Dayna became pregnant. She continued working until the day she gave birth. Then she went out on 12 weeks of maternity leave. Her employer had just 11 employees.
Apparently during the recession, fewer Californians decided to have plastic surgery. As a result, the practice concluded it had to cut staff. Because it already had a backup receptionist, it decided to eliminate Dayna’s job. The office manager told her that she was being cut because “economic times” had caused a “decline in the practice.” She was the last employee hired.
Dayna sued, alleging that she was entitled to reinstatement under FEHA. Her argument was that it was illegal for the practice to terminate her because her job wasn’t really eliminated. She said the duties had merely been shifted to someone else.
The court disagreed and dismissed her case. It reasoned that FEHA allows employers to cut employees on maternity leave for a number of reasons—including economic conditions—as long as the move isn’t related to pregnancy or leave. In this case, since Dayna was the last person hired and another employee could take over her position as a cost-cutting move, the practice was within its rights to terminate her. (Christine-Derry v. Renuance Aesthetic Care, et al., No. E053915, Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate District, 2012)
- Federal laws on employee discrimination: what managers need to know
- Identify employees with substance-abuse problems
- Be cautious with FMLA firings; ADA, FMLA can overlap
- Supreme Court follows Ledbetter logic in AT&T pregnancy discrimination case
- The court affirms: Your employee has the right to an attorney