JAY — An investigator for the Maine Human Rights Commission has found there are reasonable grounds to believe that LaFleur’s Restaurant discriminated against a former employee on the basis of her sex after she revealed her pregnancy and was fired.
LaFleur’s has denied there was any discrimination. It asserts that it terminated the woman’s employment after she demonstrated that she failed to truly understand the job and called out frequently, often with little notice, according to investigator Michele Dion’s report.
Maryellen Remington of Livermore Falls, who began work at the restaurant as a hostess and waitress in March 2013, filed a complaint with the commission on Jan. 31, 2014, in regards to the June 2013 incident.
The restaurant employs about 20 employees and is subject to the Maine Human Rights Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as well as state and federal employment regulations.
The Maine Human Rights Act provides, in part, that it is unlawful employment discrimination to discharge an employee because of their sex. The term sex includes pregnancy and medical conditions which result from pregnancy, the report states.
Dion’s findings and recommendation for conciliation will go before the Human Rights Commission at 8:30 a.m. Monday, April 27, at No. 51 State House Station, 19 Union St., in Augusta.
According to Dion’s report, after Remington took a home pregnancy test and it was positive she called her health care provider June 20, 2013, and scheduled an appointment for later in the day. She was scheduled to work the lunch shift, so she telephoned her supervisor several hours before the start of her shift to explain that she would not be able to work her shift. She told her supervisor that her home pregnancy test had been positive. The supervisor “’responded that it was fine and that Ms. Remington should go ahead with the doctor’s appointment.’ Lab tests confirmed that she was pregnant,” the report states.
Remington worked her Friday shift without incident, and discussed her pregnancy with a co-worker during her shift. That day, while picking up her paycheck, she encountered the owner of LaFleur’s.
“He told her that her employment was terminated. Owner said, ‘This isn’t going to work,’ because the busy season was coming and the restaurant needed ‘someone who will be here and not miss work for appointments,’” the investigator wrote.
“He then said, ‘Best of luck to you, and best of luck to your baby,’” the report states.
Before June 20, 2013, Remington had not been absent due to appointments. She had one prior absence for illness unrelated to her pregnancy a number of weeks earlier, which had been approved by the owner, the report states.
“She had received no warnings or negative feedback about her attendance or her performance,” Dion wrote.
“Ms. Remington alleged that other, non-pregnant employees of the restaurant have called out from time to time due to illness or doctors’ appointments and have not been discharged,” according to the report.
LaFleur’s responses to Remington’s accusations were that her “employment was terminated for two reasons. First, she called out five or six times on scheduled work days. Her frequent absences, which usually happened on Mondays, constituted an unreliable work ethic and made her an unreliable employee. The second reason was that, due to her lack of experience, she failed to truly understand her responsibilities in the workplace. Owner shared these reasons with Ms. Remington when she was terminated.”
The owner explained that after 35 years in the business, he does not keep personnel files on his employees, Dion wrote. He had two prior employees that were pregnant. One worked until the beginning of her eighth month and the other worked until her water broke.
Shortly after Remington’s termination of employment and prior to filing her charge with the commission, Remington made repeated written requests for her personnel file and for a written statement of the reason for her discharge. Pursuant to Maine law, LaFleur’s was required to provide a copy of the personnel file within 10 days, and the written statement within 15 days. LaFleur’s never provided this information, Dion wrote.
“There is apparently no personnel file. During her employment, complainant received no warnings, counselings or other discipline. There is also no record of the complainant’s alleged five absences, which she denies occurred,” she wrote.
In the investigator’s final analysis, she wrote that Remington “has been able to demonstrate that the reasons given for her termination are false and that the real reason for the adverse action taken against her was her pregnancy.”
dperry@sunmediagroup.net
Send questions/comments to the editors.
