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.
Related:
Inside Unsealed Documents in Microsoft Gender Discrimination Case
Five Steps Governments Should Take to Address Workplace Harassment
Fired Day After Revealing Pregnancy, Employee Needed More Evidence, Panel Rules
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
© 2025 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 AllJudge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
What Businesses Need to Know About Anticipated FTC Leadership Changes
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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