Stevens & Lee Denies Discriminating Against Pregnant Legal Assistant
Credit: Syda Productions/Shutterstock.com
Stevens & Lee is standing by its decision to fire a former legal assistant just weeks after she returned from maternity leave, arguing that she was asked to leave because she was unreliable, and not as a result of pregnancy discrimination.
The central Pennsylvania-based firm filed an answer Wednesday to former legal assistant Alicia Drees' suit, which alleges sex discrimination and retaliation under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Family and Medical Leave Act violations and disability discrimination.
In its answer, the firm admitted that Drees was told she was fired because she was unreliable. But the firm denied that her supervisors, human relations employees Tammy Arner and Kim DuBois, "provided shifting reasons" for her termination, as the complaint alleged.
Instead, the firm said it provided four reasons why she was terminated. That included "her absenteeism" during times not protected under the FMLA. The firm also alleged that Drees was absent from her desk during times when she was clocked in, and that other legal assistants had to take time away from their own work to take on tasks assigned to Drees.
Stevens & Lee also denied Drees' allegation that she was terminated in part because of her lactation breaks. However, the firm admitted that Drees had never missed time from work without a doctor's excuse, and had just recently returned from maternity leave when she was fired.
"It is denied that Ms. DuBois accused Ms. Drees of 'stealing' time from Stevens & Lee. It is admitted that Ms. DuBois and Ms. Arner told Ms. Drees that time spent washing her hands should have occurred during her unpaid break and should not have occurred after she had clocked back into work following her unpaid break," the answer said.
According to the complaint, Drees informed the firm in May 2016 that she was pregnant and applied for maternity leave under the FMLA. She started her leave in mid-December and returned in early March 2017.
In her suit, Drees said she and her two children experienced a number of medical issues throughout her maternity leave, which required surgeries and follow-up appointments, some of which were scheduled after Drees was scheduled to return to work at the law firm. That included a surgery she scheduled for March 16, for which she asked to have half of that day and the next full day off.
Stevens & Lee said in its answer that Drees' request for time off due to her daughter's medical care was approved, but only subject to the availability of FMLA leave time, which had been exhausted as of March 3, 2017.
Shortly after she returned from maternity leave, the complaint said, Drees became sick with a sinus infection and called out from the firm for two days on March 6 and 7. Then, on March 16, when she was planning to leave early for her surgery, she was fired, and told it was because she was unreliable, the complaint said.
In that meeting, the complaint said, Drees offered to cancel her surgery if she could keep her job. But the firm's representative then accused Drees of abusing the firm’s lactation break policy, taking more than the two 30-minute breaks she was allowed to take in lieu of a one-hour lunch break, the complaint said.
She was also told that Drees’ supervising attorneys decided that one legal assistant was sufficient to handle all of the attorneys’ and consultants’ work, so Drees wasn’t needed, the complaint alleged.
Stevens & Lee denied that allegation in its answer.
Bradford Dorrance of Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, who is representing Drees, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Thursday.
READ MORE:
Former Staffer Sues Stevens & Lee, Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination
The 'Gayby Boom' and the Rise of Gender-Neutral Leave Policies
