» Network Home

Stereotyped assumptions about working women and families are very much alive and well.  And, importantly, they can lead to viable lawsuits, where employers unlawfully discriminate against workers – for example, fail to promote a worker-mom - because of the employers’ perception that caregiving responsibilities outside of the workplace will interfere with the workers on-the-job performance. A recent decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on a Family Responsibilities Discrimination (FRD) case, Chadwick v. Wellpoint, Inc., speaks directly to this idea.

The case history of Chadwick v. Wellpoint, Inc. is as follows:  Maine resident Laurie Chadwick worked at WellPoint, an insurance company, for 9 years. Due to her excellent track record, she was encouraged by her supervisor to apply for a promotion to be Team Lead.  However, after Laurie applied for the promotion, and before the employer filled the Team Lead position, the hiring manager learned that Laurie had 4 children at home, 1 child, age 11, and triplets, age 6.

Upon learning of Laurie’s 4 young children at home, the hiring manager and two other interviewers made a series of remarks that the First Circuit found to be critical to Laurie’s case:

• Shortly before determining who would be Team Lead, the hiring manager learned of Laurie’s triplets and sent Laurie an email saying, “Oh my – I did not know you had triplets.  Bless you!”
• During Laurie’s interview with her former supervisor, she was asked how she would respond if an associate did not complete a project on time.  Frustrated with Laurie’s response, her supervisor stated, “Laurie, you are a mother[.] [W]ould you let your kids off the hook that easy if they made a mess in [their] room[?] [W]ould you clean it or hold them accountable?”
• Ultimately, the hiring manager passed over Laurie, and chose a woman with inferior qualifications and less experience to be Team Lead.  When Laurie asked why she did not get the job, the hiring manager said: “It was nothing you did or didn’t do. It was just that you’re going to school, you have the kids and you just have a lot on your plate right now.”
• Laurie was also told by the hiring manager after the decision was made, “if [the three interviewers] were in your position, they would feel overwhelmed.”

While Laurie’s lawsuit was originally dismissed for failure to state a claim, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently reviewed the lower court’s decision, reversed it, and remanded the case for trial.   

When rendering its decision, the First Circuit Court stated:

“ [A]n employer is not free to assume that a woman, because she is a woman, will necessarily be a poor worker because of family responsibilities. The essence of Title VII in this context is that women have the right to prove their mettle in the work arena without the burden of stereotypes regarding whether they can fulfill their responsibilities.”

Laurie’s story appears to get to the heart of caregiving discrimination.  Laurie was objectively found to be an excellent, hardworking employee over 9 years, and there had never been any allegation or insinuation that her work suffered because of her child care responsibilities.  Still, when the hiring manager learned of her caregiving responsibilities outside of the home, including care for triplet 6 year olds, it seems there was an assumption that her work could suffer, as Laurie’s “plate was full.” Ultimately, it appears that it was the hiring manager’s assumptions (interestingly, the hiring manager and fellow interviewers were all women) about Laurie’s caregiving needs and how they would interfere with Laurie’s work, and not Laurie’s long term work track record, that were the basis for the hiring manager’s decision.

• Uncategorized