I Dont Think I Agree with the Court

A Chicagoland woman sued her company which fired her in the midst of a re-organization. The woman was applying at that same time for a second leave of absence for infertility treatment, IVF in particular. The district court said discrimination was not an issue since men can be infertile too. An appeals court reversed that decision.

Sure, men won't undergo IVF, but they might have other procedures. I think the woman was rightly let go since she and already taken a family leave for a first IVF round that didn't work out. The employer need not give her leave beyond what the law requires. If she used up all the time in her first IVF or other illnesses, then she's not entitled to more time off. I think the employer's getting gypped here.

I generally think employers should be flexible and accommodating to employees' needs, but a business has to run and can't keep holding slots for and paying folks who aren't there to do their part. If an employee can't meet his responsibilities 90% of the time then perhaps the employee should leave. I think that employees can only expect so much flexibility before their needs, real or not, interfere strongly with the running of the business. A business has a right to be able to put the company's needs before an employee's.

The questions that this article doesn't answer have to do with whether the plaintiff used up the allowable time off and whether it was going to let her go anyway as a result of the re-org and other changes to the business.