Did You Know That “firing a woman for breastfeeding isn’t sexist because men can lactate, too”
Every new mother is well aware of the benefits of breastfeeding and why they should breastfeed their baby. A pregnant woman and new mother are bombarded with research, flyers, books, advice, advice from strangers, etc. on why the breast is best. It’s everywhere… except, it seems, at Nationwide Insurance. Although I’m sure Nationwide would claim to be pro-breastfeeding in a “We 100% support breastfeeding… in the home” sorta way.
The Supreme Court has declined to overturn a lower court’s ruling that an insurance company was within bounds when it fired a breastfeeding mother. The woman’s suit was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court on the grounds that firing a woman for breastfeeding isn’t sexist because men can lactate, too.
The ACLU’s Galen Sherwin wrote Monday that former Nationwide Insurance Company employee Angela Ames sued her employer when she returned from maternity leave to find that no allowances had been made to enable her to pump breast milk for her baby during the day.
When Ames asked her supervisor for accommodations that would enable her to express milk and store it for her child, the supervisor reportedly responded that Ames should “go home and be with your babies” instead. That supervisor went on to dictate a letter of resignation to Ames that day, effectively forcing her to resign.
Men can lactate, too! They don’t, but they can (or some can), so… hand that baby over to dad and get back to work, Ms. Ames!
I breastfed both of my children, and while I sincerely enjoyed it I would have loved to hand off those 3am feedings to my husband. If only I had known at the time some men could lactate! I would have bought him his very own pump!
Perhaps it’s time to encourage new fathers to try inducing lactation. I can’t imagine new mothers being against this since it would equate into more sleep and free time – two things new mothers have very little of. And if breastfeeding is so important, then let’s spread out the work.
Why aren’t expectant fathers presented with countless materials, instructions and advice on breastfeeding at the doctor’s office… or in line at Target? Why aren’t there breast pumps marketed to men? I Googled “breast pumps” and every one pictured (in its original packaging) had a picture of a mother and child on it. Where was the father? Yes, I know it’s a silly question, but not as silly as pretending it’s okay to fire a mother because men can lactate, too! – and pretending men breastfeeding their children happens all the time. It’s like the court is saying, “I can’t believe you refused to consider your husband breastfeeding your baby! What were you thinking, you selfish, sexist, breastfeeding monopolizer!”
The Court also found that the dismissive statement that Ames should “go home and be with (her) babies” was in fact gender neutral and not directed at Ames because she was a new mother.
Talk about something else that happens all the time. How many men are told to go home and be with their babies? I imagine most fathers would love to hear those words, but they won’t because everyone knows that staying home with children is women’s work. Anyone pretending otherwise (cough, Eighth Circuit Court and Supreme Court, cough) is lying.
Women can’t win. Don’t breastfeed your child? You’re a bad mother who’s hurting her child. Breastfeed your child? You’re fired because you could simply hand that job off to dad… like everyone else. And, why are we having to deal with your breastfeeding issues at work? You should be home with your babies. This is what a War on Women looks like. It’s a no-win situation.
Tags: Breastfeeding, sexism, Women's Issues
This looks like a case of “don’t sign anything that HR puts in front of you until a lawyer goes over it.”
But beyond that – Holy crap!! The court has gone into the twilight zone to try and justify this obvious injustice.
The three-judge panel — all men, of course — included one Reagan appointee and two W appointees.
I’m struggling to find words, but I feel compelled to say something. This is really a disgusting decision.
I had to keep rereading the article because I kept thinking I was misinterpreting what the court was saying.
There are some interesting aspects of this case.
First, the executive VP who was central to this case is Karla Neel (that is, she is a woman).
Second, Nationwide’s lactation policy, allowed employees to gain badge access to the company’s lactation rooms after completing certain paperwork that required three days to be processed. The lactation policy was available to Nationwide’s employees on the company’s intranet, and Nationwide provided information regarding the policy at its quarterly maternity meetings.
Third, Neel told Ames ““You know, I think it’s best that you go home to be with your babies.” Although, at other places in Ames’s deposition and in her brief opposing Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment, Ames attributes to Neel different versions of this statement, such as “[m]aybe you should just stay home” and “[m]aybe you should just go home with your babies.” So it is unclear exactly what Neel said.
Fourth, Although Nationwide incorrectly calculated Ames’s FMLA leave, it made efforts to ameliorate the impact of its mistake. Neel did not discourage Ames from taking the FMLA leave to which Ames was entitled.
Fifth, Neel gave Ames an extra week of maternity leave, which gave Ames more than thirty days to prepare for her return to work.
Sixth, Ames was denied immediate access to a lactation room only because
she had not completed the paperwork to gain badge access. Every nursing mother
was required to complete the same paperwork and was subjected to the same three day waiting period.
Seventh, the company nurse tried to accommodate Ames by allowing her to use a wellness room as soon as it was available and by requesting that Ames receive expedited access to the lactation rooms.
In summary, I find that source material (the actual court opinion in this case) provides a more complete perspective on the case than articles written by folks that have specific opinions on the issue.
@Dave – Thank you for summarizing these point. They are helpful to an extent. However, the fact that Ms Neel is a female is irrelevant. Same with the extra FMLA time. Same with what exactly was spoken by Ms Neel. I don’t see the relevance at all.
Why didn’t Ames simply get the access badge to the lactation room? Was it better to terminate than to sort out something (like the nurse allowing her to use the Wellness Room during the three day waiting period)?
I guess even after these additional facts I still don’t understand why Ames was sacked. On top of which, the male lactation bit as some sort of justification is truly bizarre.
Perhaps it is the ruling, rather than the episodes leading up to it, that is more outrageous.
Im not a parent…. so this is a real question, not a snarky gotcha-question. If a choice is available to stay home (as in, there really ought to be 12-16 months of paid maternity/paternity leave in every job in the country) wouldn’t it be a safer/more controlled environment in which to care for an infant?
NOT saying women should be at home with babies,
NOT saying women shouldn’t breast feed in public.
Isnt home preferable to not home? AND… might that have been what Neel was suggesting? (maybe it wasnt, maybe shes a sexist woman who thinks once women give birth, they need to be shut in the kitchen…. those women exist, they are called Republicans)
that court ruling however, is awful. I see no possible explanation as to why it isnt an outrage.
The reasoning behind the ruling is awful. Men can lactate, indeed. That’s really all you know about this case.
If there’s a flippin’ lactation room on site then why would a nursing mother be required to complete paperwork to gain a badge to access the company’s, you know, lactation room? And why would that paperwork take three days to process?
The room exists, right? Why is Nationwide making women jump through these hoops? What is the point of paperwork, waiting periods and badges? This procedure exist solely for the reason to make breastfeeding difficult. It’s a gotcha! you didn’t complete all the silly steps we created.
And the fact that the executive VP is a woman matters how? Answer: It doesn’t matter one bit. I’ve said this before – People really need to stop seeing women and minorities as a monolith. But why even point the VP’s sex out? Would it make a difference if the executive VP was a male? Does the fact that the VP was a women mean what happened was okay? By pointing out the VP’s sex it would seem so.
I’m with Dorian in not seeing the relevance. The only relevance I see is a way for companies to make life harder for nursing mothers. This case will be used as a way to accomplish that. Can anyone imagine needing to complete paperwork, waiting three days, and needing a badge due to their using a catheter or having a medical condition that requires frequent use of the bathroom or the need to use a cane/crutches due to planned surgery?
And Ben, as far as staying home with a baby… that depends on the woman. Some women would love to stay home, some would not. Just like some people would like to work from home, while some people would not.
“If there’s a flippin’ lactation room on site then why would a nursing mother be required to complete paperwork to gain a badge to access the company’s, you know, lactation room? And why would that paperwork take three days to process?”
Breast milk security. I guess putting cameras in there would be a better idea? My guess is this is a pretty big office complex, I’ve had my lunch stolen from the company fridge on more than one occasion. Wouldn’t it be awful if some malevolent soul tampered with the now expressed and refrigerated milk?
Three days seems like a reasonable time to allow for the processing of paperwork through HR, security, and the woman’s direct supervisor. I certainly don’t think its an unreasonable time period for any security clearance.
I think she failed to plan, but I don’t think she should have been fired for it. The lactating men thing is ridiculous.
Maybe it was the beer she needed to let-down. 🙂 I’m ducking Pandora……
But if security of breast milk is the issue then why not have a bunch of locker refrigerators with keys or combination locks? (yeah, sorta kidding) Unless we think that breast feeding moms would never tamper with some other mother’s breast milk because nursing mothers produce some sort of anti-criminal hormone. This really doesn’t strike me as a breast milk security issue, because, well, we aren’t securing the breast milk.
As long as more than one nursing mom has access to the refrigerator then breast milk tampering is a concern. And… cameras? It would take 10 seconds before those films show up on 4chan. 😉
I just keep coming back to “The woman’s suit was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court on the grounds that firing a woman for breastfeeding isn’t sexist because men can lactate, too.” There is simply no getting around that one.
And Joanne, I preferred a glass of wine!
“And the fact that the executive VP is a woman matters how? ”
because “This is what a War on Women looks like”
And because, gender matters in a such a war and because it was not pointed out that the primary individual involved was a woman, who is also a mother who has had multiple pregnancies and it was she who made the comment and who provided the pen and paper for the resignation, not her supervisor as the article suggested. And it’s important to note that a man was not involved in this latest battle of the WoW.
And really because facts matter.
And no, Neel’s gender does not make it right. However, the complaint (and the article) alleged that Ames was denied a place to pump breast milk when she returned to work from maternity leave, which is simply not true. Nationwide has a lactation room and procedure that was communicated to employees on how to avail themselves of the facility. Ames was offered an alternative (the Wellness Room).
I read the court opinion because I wanted to see whether there was some correlation with the outrage. There wasn’t.
Wait… what? Are you claiming that only men can wage a War on Women? Seriously? Because if you actually believe that… You. Are. Wrong.
And I’ll point out that I didn’t call out Ms. Ames’ superior at all. The entire point of my post was about the court claiming that firing a woman for breastfeeding isn’t sexist because men can lactate, too. A point that you, Dave, never addressed.
I think it matters only in that it illustrates that this isn’t just Men Vs Women.
I think people try to reduce it to to that…. usually people who follow it up with “it’s just women being hysterical” and a way to write off the concerns.
But men who DON’T discriminate against women don’t get any special fanfare (nor should we), so why should women who help facilitate their own oppression (which is exactly what Neel did) get special designation? This is a company…. not a man or a woman… but a soul-less set of bylaws and SOPs designed to give employees as little compensation/benefit as possible, who’s policies resulted in an unnecessary termination….
then 3 old men did something else totally ridiculous and insane.
Employee issues. Do you really think this was about “breastfeeding”? No doubt, the non-compliance of paperwork expected of all, probably gave the company the out from everything else BEFORE this issue the employee brought them. We’ve all worked with them……the person who always has a doctor’s note, limited work release, bedrest, partial disability, flexible time, follow-up, recommended breaks, etc…..that DESTROYS morale of a workgroup in an office, yet afflicted employee has the game on. Really ruins it for the average person needing any of those things on a more substantiated and true need. Sorry it fell on no reservations made for breastfeeding. But I bet it was worth it to Nationwide to see this through, and there are high-fives at the water cooler, and breast pumps churning to capacity in the lactation room with the news. It’s hard when your need for exception has finally been overruled, and probably the court only responded perhaps tongue in cheek, to underscore a misuse of a very generous, and tolerant company timeline.
Ok, let me address that. Your post said “The woman’s suit was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court on the grounds that firing a woman for breastfeeding isn’t sexist because men can lactate, too.”
But the article said “The trial court also held, nonsensically, that even if Angela had been fired because she was breastfeeding that was not sex discrimination, in part because men can lactate under certain circumstances.”
So it was the trial court that said that. Not the Eight Circuit Court. I reread the entire opinion of the circuit to be sure they did not repeat that nonsensical argument.
Even so, the trial court said following:
“See Pl.’s Resistance Br. at 19–20. After providing an overview of existing case law surrounding lactation, the Falk court summarized:
“”As it stands, no existing case law correctly excludes lactation or other conditions
experienced by the mother as a result of breast-feeding from Title VII protection
under the PDA. A plaintiff could potentially succeed on a claim if she alleged and
was able to prove that lactation was a medical condition related to pregnancy, and
that this condition, and not a desire to breastfeed, was the reason for the
discriminatory action(s) that she suffered.””
Falk, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87278, at *13 n.7 (emphasis added). Ames has not presented sufficient evidence that lactation is a medical condition related to pregnancy. Indeed, as the Nationwide Defendants point out, “lactation can be induced by stimulating the body to produce milk even though the person has not experienced a recent birth or pregnancy.” Defs.’ Reply Br. in Supp. of MSJ “Nationwide’s Reply Br.”) at 12 n.9. Additionally, the Court takes judicial
notice of the fact that adoptive mothers can also breast-feed their adoptive babies. See Defs.’ App. at 323–25 (stating that adoptive mothers can breast-feed their adoptive babies and describing what adoptive mothers should do to stimulate milk production). Furthermore, it is a scientific fact that even men have milk ducts and the hormones responsible for milk production. See Nikhil Swaminathan, Strange but True: Males Can Lactate, SCI. AM., Sept. 6, 2007, available at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-males-can-lactate&sc=rss. Accordingly, lactation is not a physiological condition experienced exclusively by women who have recently given birth. Assuming, arguendo, that Ames had presented sufficient evidence that lactation was a medical condition related to pregnancy, the Court is doubtful that she has presented enough facts
to establish that her alleged constructive discharge was due to her medical condition (lactation) rather than due to her desire to breast-feed. See Falk, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87278, at *13 n.7. Indeed, Ames’s Amended Complaint contains several references to her desire to pump milk as a form of nutrition for her newborn son. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22–23, 32, 42, 45. As Falk held,
however, “Title VII does not extend to breast-feeding as a child care concern.” Falk, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87278, at *10. 13″
Even a cursory reading should demonstrate that even the trial court was not making a “nonsensical” argument but was merely summarizing another courts summarization of case law regarding lactation.
Again, there seems to be little or no correlation between the facts and the need or desire for outrage. I will note that I did not read every filing at the trial court level for this case. So if there is some glaring demonstration of the oppression of women, I will be more than happy to stand corrected.
David, good reading…. better than i did. I have pumped the breaks on my outrage.
It’s curious what facts you chose to present.
The Eighth Circuit court upheld the lower court’s ruling which cited the lactating argument. Why did the lower court even cite it? Does their ignoring that part of the lower court’s ruling mean that male lactating is no longer part of the lower court’s ruling? That that part no longer stands anywhere and can no longer be used/cited? Serious question, btw.
Because if that nonsense stands (and it was about male lactating – go click on the included Scientific America link whose title is: Strange but True: Males Can Lactate) then I’m still concerned.
You’ve stated several times that Nationwide had a lactation procedure available that Ames should have utilized, but neglected to say that Ames had contacted a Nationwide disability case manager about pumping and was not told the correct procedure. So, Ames did try and get the correct procedure information. Why leave that part out?
You also put forth that the supervisor was a woman who had multiple pregnancies. Why does this matter? Did you read the below information from the Eighth Court of appeals?
“When Ames discussed her bed rest with Neel, Neel rolled her eyes and said that she never had to go on bed rest when she was pregnant and that she never had complications with her pregnancies. Neel had previously expressed to Ames her belief that a woman should not have a baby shower while she is pregnant because the baby could die in utero.”
Yeah, Neel sounds like a charming person. Whatever.
But you left that out and said, “And because, gender matters in a such a war and because it was not pointed out that the primary individual involved was a woman, who is also a mother who has had multiple pregnancies and it was she who made the comment and who provided the pen and paper for the resignation, not her supervisor as the article suggested.
First, I never said one word about the gender of the primary individual. Why point out that Neel was a mother who had multiple pregnancies? Why did this matter to you? Are you holding Neel to a different standard than a man because she’s a mother and had experienced pregnancies?
Third, concerning Neel’s statement about going home, you say,
‘“You know, I think it’s best that you go home to be with your babies.” Although, at other places in Ames’s deposition and in her brief opposing Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment, Ames attributes to Neel different versions of this statement, such as “[m]aybe you should just stay home” and “[m]aybe you should just go home with your babies.” So it is unclear exactly what Neel said.”
Is “[m]aybe you should just stay home” and “[m]aybe you should just go home with your babies.” really unclear? In both versions Neel is telling her to (maybe) leave work and stay/go home. Both versions convey the same message.
And look at the timing of the “go home” statement.
“Neel testified that Ames was visibly upset and in tears. Neel then handed Ames a piece of paper and a pen and told Ames, “You know, I think it’s best that you go home to be with your babies.” Neel dictated to Ames what to write on the piece of paper to effectuate her resignation.”
Neel says Ames was upset and in tears (and it’s at this time some version of the two “going home” comments was made) and then handed Ames a piece of paper and a pen and then dictated the resignation letter. Everyone okay with that? Maybe when someone gets a call at work about their child being in an accident, or learning that a spouse has cancer, and they’re upset and in tears we can have them write their own resignation letter? To me, it looks like Neel took advantage of Ames’ emotional state.
As far as Neel giving Ames extra time…
“Fourth, Although Nationwide incorrectly calculated Ames’s FMLA leave, it made efforts to ameliorate the impact of its mistake. Neel did not discourage Ames from taking the FMLA leave to which Ames was entitled.
Fifth, Neel gave Ames an extra week of maternity leave, which gave Ames more than thirty days to prepare for her return to work.”
But Ames did prepare. She prepared on the information provided by Nationwide. If a company told a person they had six weeks vacation and the person had used four weeks, but had scheduled a cruise for two more weeks in the future only to be called by their employer, a month before the cruise, and told that they didn’t have those stated additional two weeks (but they’d give them one week) people would be upset and scheduled plans would have to be canceled due to employer error.
Neel didn’t give the “extra” week out of the goodness of her heart. Nationwide screwed up and gave out the wrong information (Sheesh, Nationwide sure does seem to give out a lot of wrong information.) concerning Ames’ FMLA. Neel told Ames that she could take what Nationwide originally stated (unpaid) but that would “cause[] red flags,” that she“ [didn’t] want there to be any problems like that,” and that she “[didn’t] want there to be any issues down the road. Neel told Ames that she wanted to find a mutually agreeable date of return and offered to extend Ames’s maternity leave an additional week.”
Hey, Ames could take the time Nationwide promised her (unpaid) but if she did then it would cause red flags. Is this really a situation where a “mutually agreeable” solution is possible?
All of this seems pretty hostile. I didn’t even get into Brian Brinks’ (her supervisor) comments: “Brinks told Ames that none of her work had been completed while she was on maternity leave, that she had two weeks to complete that work, that she would have to work overtime to accomplish this, and that if she failed to catch up, she would be disciplined.”
And Brinks’ comments happened while she was waiting for the Wellness Room. And why wasn’t her work (or at least some of it) done? Nationwide trained Angie Ebensberger to fill the position. Have we found another Nationwide screw up?
But maybe you’re right, Dave. The male lactation court argument isn’t the main problem – altho that is a problem. Pregnancy and breastfeeding at Nationwide is the problem. Sure looks like they used both as a way to get rid of Ames. And maybe she was a horrible person no one wanted to work with, but their methods in doing so stink and will create problems for future pregnant and breastfeeding women.
I think we can all agree that pregnant women and new mothers are really being under served by our money-hungry system.
Looked at as if you no humanity, a nursing mother and a baby are majot drains on resources. Babies cant produce anything of value and require an immense amount of time and money. If an entity exists only to make money, a nursing employee is a worst case scenario. We cant trust a business, any business, to do the right thing, so we must legislate them into doing so….. shit, im even ok with paying more taxes so they can receive subsidies and tax breaks for treating their employees like humans.
I feel like the image selected for this post was bereft of areola intentionally. I barely see any nip, the baby is latched on perfectly and doesn’t even really appear to be nursing.
2ndly it should have been a man’s nipple
LOL, DV! I guess that will end this thread.