Former Avon Employee Claims She Was Fired for Being Pregnant
In her complaint, Caroline Ruiz claims the company's pro-women posture is belied by both its male-dominated structure and its decision to fire her days after she alerted HR to her complicated pregnancy.
October 03, 2018 at 03:12 PM
4 minute read
Avon's next call will need to be to its attorneys after an employee filed a wrongful termination suit against the women's beauty and personal care products company Wednesday, claiming the company's public posture of female empowerment belies its discriminatory practices internally.
Caroline Ruiz's claims go beyond claiming she was illegally fired shortly after alerting her boss, who was male, that she was enduring a high-risk pregnancy that required time away from the office. Her complaint paints Avon as perpetuating a false image of itself as a champion for and of women, despite its leadership consisting largely of men whose policies directly and negatively impacted her.
In a statement, her attorney, Wigdor LLP partner Jeanne Christensen, rhetorically asked what the all-male leadership at Avon would do to right this wrong against a female employee. According to the complaint, Avon's top corporate leadership are all white males.
“Avon boasts that it is a company dedicated to empowering women. But as alleged in the complaint, Avon abhorrently fired our client simply because she disclosed her pregnancy,” Christensen said. “Such overt discrimination is intolerable by any company, but is even more disturbing when the company is Avon—an alleged leader for women.”
According to the complaint, Ruiz received a right to sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August. Ruiz came to work at Avon in January 2018. Toward the end of that same month, she says she was rushed to the emergency room where she was told she was considered at high risk of suffering a miscarriage. Her doctor recommended a week of bed rest.
After taking a couple days off, Ruiz said she returned to work, despite experiencing continued medical issues, to inform Avon's human resources that she was both pregnant and facing medical concerns. A day later she says she was “bombarded” with “fabricated 'performances issues'” from her manager. She claims it was the first time she'd heard any criticism over her performance, and she asked for guidance on what the specific issues were.
When she reiterated her recently realized health issues to management at the time, Ruiz says she was told by her manager that her health wasn't his concern—”but your performance is.”
Shortly after communicating with her manager about her medical situation as well as her performance, Ruiz says she was denied a request to work remotely—something she claims was a widespread and regular practice among her co-workers. Days later, after returning to work after a weekend, Ruiz said she was unexpectedly called into the office of a separate vice president's office and told she was terminated immediately over “performance deficiencies.” She'd worked for the company for less than four weeks.
A spokeswoman for Avon said the company denies Ruiz's discrimination claims. She added that, while its policy was not to comment on pending litigation, Avon remains proud of its reputation as “the company for women.”
“As a preeminent employer of women, with a workforce comprised of more than two-thirds women, we understand the particular needs working mothers have, and we are committed to supporting them before, during, and after maternity leave,” the Avon spokeswoman said. “Our dedication to women's advancement in the workplace includes ensuring work-life balance, a comprehensive benefits package that provides incremental women's health features, and a generous maternity leave.”
Ruiz brought 10 causes of action against the company, under both the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as well as New York state and city human rights laws.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250