A Marriott employee denied lactation breaks is suing for sexual discrimination. The chain qualifies that, as she is a gestational surrogate, it was not legally required to accommodate her.
An employee of Marriott who says she was denied her legally mandated lactation breaks is now suing the chain for sexual discrimination. Experts believe that the suit brought forth by Mary Gonzales, an accountant and cashier at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Marriott, could have implications on future claims of workplace sexual discrimination.
In response to Gonzales’ claim, Marriott has said that, because she is a gestational surrogate rather than a mother with an infant, it was not legally required to grant Gonzales lactation breaks.
Gonzales gave birth in April 2014 and returned to work in June of that year. Upon her return, she took two half-hour breaks a day to pump breast milk to send to the child’s parents. However, once her obligation to send milk to the surrogate family ended, Gonzales continued pumping for health reasons and to donate her milk to women who were unable to breastfeed.
Gonzales claims that she was told by her boss that she could continue taking lactation breaks for another 30-day period. When this period expired, she pumped during her half-hour lunch break. Gonzales says that she suffered health issues as a result.
While she offered to present her employer with a doctor’s note in support of her continued breast pumping, Marriott refused to reinstate her lactation breaks.
In response to the suit, Marriott filed a motion to dismiss with the U.S. District Court of Central California.
This motion was denied last Wednesday by Judge Margaret M. Morrow, who wrote in her decision that, “A reasonable jury could conclude that Gonzales was subjected to the treatment she was because Marriott perceived she did not conform to stereotypical views of how women act as it relates to motherhood or child bearing.”
While the outcome of Gonzales’ suit is pending, it brings into question whether an employer should be party to the reasons for an employee’s pregnancy in order to assess whether or not accommodations like lactation breaks should be made. Gonzales’ case also brings a wider debate concerning the definition of sexual discrimination to the forefront of the legal sphere.
h/t Slate
[Photo: Marriott Hotels]