The (Not-So-Secret) War on Moms : How the Supreme Court Took Protections Away from Pregnant Workers

This week, the Supreme Court ruled, by the all-too-familiar 5-4 margin, that a provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) giving workers time off to care for their own serious health conditions — including pregnancy and childbirth — can't be enforced by state employees in damages lawsuits against their public employers. The decision in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland effectively stripped many public employees — the majority of whom are women — of the right to job protection when they need to take time off while pregnant. The ACLU had joined an amicus brief arguing that the law was written in a gender-neutral way to provide women workers with the time they needed to go through childbirth and pregnancy-related complications, while ensuring that employers wouldn't discriminate based on the assumption that only women will need to take health-related leave from their jobs. While no opinion garnered five votes, a majority of the Court agreed that the law was not justified as a remedy for a pattern of unconstitutional discrimination against women or pregnant workers.

What's noteworthy about the decision is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, which she summarized aloud from the bench — an indication that she felt strongly that the majority had royally missed the point. In an opinion nearly twice as long as the plurality's, Ginsburg placed the FMLA in the context of a decades-long struggle for women's equality in the workplace. The FMLA — including the self-care provision — was drafted as a gender-neutral response to the fact that previous legislative victories, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended the civil rights laws to forbid job discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, had not succeeded in preventing discrimination against pregnant workers. Then, as now, pregnant workers were being pushed out of the workplace. Then, as now, women were told they should stay home after having children. And then, as now, women who took maternity leave paid a heavy price for doing so.

But did all of this discrimination against pregnant workers amount to unconstitutional sex discrimination? Five justices seem to think not — the plurality in Coleman denied that the self-care provision of the FMLA had anything to do with sex discrimination, even while admitting that the provision benefits pregnant workers.

In dissent, Justice Ginsburg attacked this view, arguing that it is based on a much-criticized Supreme Court case from 1974 holding that governmental pregnancy discrimination is not unconstitutional sex discrimination. The case is Geduldig v. Aiello, and it held that, even though only women can become pregnant, a disability insurance program that excluded pregnancy was lawful, because it discriminated between "pregnant women and nonpregnant persons," including both men and nonpregnant women. Ginsburg called upon the Court to "revisit" that dubious conclusion, and bring its rulings into accord with the common-sense understanding that pregnancy discrimination is a form — if not the quintessential form — of sex discrimination.

As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, pregnancy and the capacity to become pregnant have always provided the "central justification for the historic discrimination against women," not only in the workplace, but in other spheres, and not only by private employers, but by the government through laws that curtailed women's opportunities and civic life. Mothers, pregnant women, and any woman whom an employer suspects might become pregnant have always been on the front lines of the war on women — and they still are. New mothers are vulnerable not only to being fired, but to being kicked out of school, humiliated, and even, when they breastfeed, banished from the public sphere. Stripping job protections from pregnant workers invites discrimination against women — a reality that was clearly understood by the three women justices who dissented.

Learn more about women's equality in the workplace: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Add a comment (4)
Read the Terms of Use

Rachel Alintoff

30 women and counting have come forward from my campaign to locate other women victimized by Judge Paul Escandon's actions on the Family Court Bench
of Monmouth County Court.

Now, from the NY Post article, other women are coming forward to tell the reporter of what they are experiencing in their own county of NJ.
This is the most pure example of Democracy.

This is how you do it. . .. . .

If you have been abused, denied your legal rights, are dealing with a judge who does not follow laws or guidelines, POST your story on craigslist.
Other women will contact you if they are experiencing the same thing with the same judge. There is power in numbers. This is a MOVEMENT.
This is giving a voice back to the people who elect the politicians that are responsible for these judges.

POST your story like I did with Judge Paul Escandon. Once you get 10 or more women with legitamate stories about the same judge AND proof of the illegal offenses,
contact the PRESS.

The local press, news stations, bloggers, activists, etc. Keep going until your concerns are heard. Judges in NJ have to stop the abuse of power and
using craigslist is a proven method of holding judges accountable for their actions on the bench. Be strong, be vocal and be a part of this judical process.
Give the power and the voice back to the people of NJ. Speak up. Make this movement work! It works. Believe me.

Fighting Agains...

Friday, July 6, 2012
Ethics Corruption Attorney Asks New Jersey Governor to Request Federal Intervention

An Ethics Rouser EXCLUSIVE by Abe King - July 6, 2012
Governor Chris Christie Asked to Seek a Federal Monitor Over Troubled Court

Christine Anderson, a noted former-government ethics attorney, is calling on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to ask the U.S. Department of Justice to appoint a federal monitor to review corruption in the Garden State's court system in Monmouth County.

Anderson is very familiar with how nasty the world of questioning any state's ethics oversight can be. She was physically assaulted by a supervisor, and ultimately fired, after she exposed widespread corruption in the New York State Court office that monitors the ethics of all attorneys in The Bronx and Manhattan. Public hearings then exposed the lack of any ethics in the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct- the state group charged with monitoring the ethics of all judges in the Empire State.

Ms. Anderson is part of a national group of professionals, including attorneys and former judges, that have been reviewing hot spots of what the group officially calls "ethical meltdowns." One member of the group, a former state court employee who asked for anonymity is more direct. "Certain attorneys and judges have been allowed to completely corrupt certain courts and the rule of law simply because of their political friends and overlooked state-court-sponsored bullying."

The ethics oversight failings of Monmouth County, New Jersey have been under review for about a year, but only recently the subject of mainstream media coverage when the New York Post published an article, by Gary Buiso on June 24, 2012, "NJ ex-wives say divorce judge favors rich hubbies."

Anderson's group decided to publicly weigh in on Monmouth County, New Jersey after it was confirmed that various inquiries were underway by the FBI. "Unfortunately, federal prosecutors must take extraordinary steps- and that takes a long time. But while those investigations continue, you have litigants- families including young children- being destroyed," says the former state court employee. "We don't necessarily point to any specific judge, knowing that many acts of corruption involve lawyers and clerks, but you must ultimately go up the 'ethics ladder of oversight' - and accountability lands in the lap of supervisory judges, administrators, legal ethics entities and, in New Jersey, the Governor."

The New York Post article focused on Monmouth County Judge Paul X. Escandon, a former criminal defense attorney. "It's important to be fair," says another member of Anderson's group noting that family court cases are always "highly-emotionally charged." One judge, and group member, has a wider perspective, saying, "Every decision I make leaves me with one enemy for life, and one temporary friend- until the next decision doesn't completely go his or her way."

But everyone agrees that somethings appears to be really, really wrong in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Supervisory judges are not taking charge and, according to current Monmouth County court employees, folks have been guiding FBI agents along the "follow-the-money" trails. The New York Post article mentioned one case- especially disturbing to Anderson's group- involving a known mobster, Nicholas Pisciotti, who admitted his involvement in a murder but who somehow then regained custodial standing from Judge Paul Escandon. Investigators reviewing the true motivations behind Judge Escandon's rulings have recently uncovered the New York case of Joseph Carulso against the same Nicholas Pisciotti (NY County Supreme Court Case 06-112432) where Carulso was awarded $2 Million Dollars in damages from the physical beating he received from Pisciotti and his friends. That New York court judge noted the victim's "extensive and ongoing medical, neurological and psychological and rehabilitation treatment" - all from the beating by Pisciotti upon victim Carulso, a former New York Times employee.

Anderson's Ethics Oversight Review group believes any inquiry into the Monmouth County court will, at a minimum, find improper decisions to favored insiders- including connected law firms- and without regard to the rule of law. And while they applaud Governor Christie's bold initiatives in New Jersey, they believe that even he (Gov. Christie) doesn't realize exactly how badly corrupt certain courts in the state have become. The former court employee is clear, "the public deserves a full, complete and open review of what appears to be widespread violations of federal laws in the Monmouth County court system- and Governor Christie should lead the way by publicly asking for the appointment of a federal monitor. Governor Christie has a proven record in attempting to help restore the faith of the people in their government." MORE ON THIS SOON......

Nicholas Purcell

Long forget paperless divorce service in Florida! It provides trusted divorce service. It also a legal document preparation service works with clients all over Florida.


Go Racheal go it's a shame my family is going through the same how can a great country like this have such a corrupt system i am from the third world country and this is even beneath us

Stay Informed