IO: Fair Employment Practices Law
A marketing director who was discharged from her job because she “could not catch up fast enough after she returned from maternity leave” was entitled to a new trial on her pregnancy bias claim, held a divided Iowa Supreme Court in a matter of first impression.
After reviewing interpretations of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the supreme court determined that the Iowa Civil Rights Act’s (ICRA) express prohibition against pregnancy bias broadly includes women who are “affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and other related conditions.” Therefore, women who have recently returned to the workplace after giving birth or taking maternity leave are protected under ICRA.
Even though ICRA’s language was different than the PDA’s, the supreme court reasoned that such a broad interpretation was “necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.” In so holding, the supreme court cautioned that ICRA does not prohibit an employer from discharging employees based on their “decision to prioritize family over work.”
In addition, employees pursuing intentional discrimination claims under ICRA are entitled to jury instruction on pretext “where, as here, a rational finder of fact could reasonably find the defendant’s explanation false and could infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose”.
(Deboom v Raining Rose Inc, August 28, 2009, at IA ¶16-2500)
Filed under: Iowa
