844 Pregnancy discrimination

Where an employer had terminated as Accounting Department Manager both because she was pregnant and because of her inferior job performance, this was a mixed motive case. Because there was a finding that the Complainant would have been terminated even if she had not been pregnant, the Complainant’s remedies were limited to a cease and desist order and payment of attorney’s fees and costs. Hoell v. Narada Productions (LIRC, 12/18/92), aff’d sub nom. Hoell v. LIRC, 186 Wis. 2d 603, 522 N.W.2d 234 (Ct. App. 1994).

The Respondent’s argument that a back pay award should not have extended until the date the Complainant (who was discharged because of pregnancy) delivered because it was not “logical” to believe she would have worked up to her delivery date embodies the same type of preconceptions about the effects of pregnancy on the employee’s abilities as was found to have violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Howard v. The Cloisters (LIRC, 08/24/90).

A pregnant employee discriminatorily denied accident and sickness coverage was awarded reimbursement for her additional insurance premiums and hospital costs, as well as seniority and other employee benefits she would have received if disabled for other than pregnancy reasons. King v. Wis. Tel. (LIRC, 05/16/79).

Where pregnancy disability had not been treated like other disabilities, the pregnant employee was entitled to disability payments, accumulated sick leave, seniority, cost of medical and hospitalization insurance premiums, and reimbursement for medical expenses. Stewart v. AT&T (DILHR, 05/17/74).