Central Pennsylvania-based Stevens & Lee has settled with a former legal assistant who sued the firm for alleged discrimination.

Alicia Drees lodged the suit last September, alleging that she was fired shortly after returning from maternity leave, as she and her children continued to suffer medical problems that caused her to request additional days off work. Her suit alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Family and Medical Leave Act violations and disability discrimination.

In court filings, Stevens & Lee stood by its decision to fire her, arguing that she was asked to leave because she was unreliable and not because of her pregnancy.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones of the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered an order Monday saying the matter had been settled. Jones dismissed the case, without prejudice to either party to reopen it within 60 days if the settlement is not consummated.

According to the complaint, Drees informed the firm in May 2016 that she was pregnant and applied for maternity leave under the FMLA. She started her leave in mid-December and returned in early March 2017.

Drees alleged that she and her two children experienced a number of medical issues throughout her maternity leave that required surgeries and follow-up appointments, some of which were scheduled after Drees was scheduled to return to work. That included a surgery she scheduled for March 16, for which she asked to have half of that day and the next full day off.

Stevens & Lee said in its answer that Drees' request for time off due to her daughter's medical care was approved, but only subject to the availability of FMLA leave time, which had been exhausted as of March 3, 2017.

Shortly after she returned from maternity leave, the complaint said, Drees became sick with a sinus infection and called out of work for two days March 6 and 7. Then, on March 16, when she was planning to leave early for her surgery, she was fired and told it was because she was unreliable, the complaint said.

In that meeting, the complaint said, Drees offered to cancel her surgery if she could keep her job. But the firm's representative then accused Drees of abusing the firm's lactation break policy, taking more than the two 30-minute breaks she was allowed to take in lieu of a one-hour lunch break, the complaint said.

She was also told that Drees' supervising attorneys decided that one legal assistant was sufficient to handle all of the attorneys' and consultants' work, so Drees wasn't needed, the complaint alleged.

Stevens & Lee said in filings that it gave Drees four reasons for her termination, including absenteeism. The firm also denied Drees' allegation that she was terminated in part because of her lactation breaks. However, the firm admitted that Drees had never missed time from work without a doctor's excuse and had just recently returned from maternity leave when she was fired.

“It is denied that Ms. DuBois accused Ms. Drees of 'stealing' time from Stevens & Lee. It is admitted that Ms. DuBois and Ms. Arner told Ms. Drees that time spent washing her hands should have occurred during her unpaid break and should not have occurred after she had clocked back into work following her unpaid break,” the answer said.

Joseph P. Hofmann of Stevens & Lee is representing the law firm in the matter. Reached by phone Tuesday, he declined to comment, saying, “I can't talk to you.”

Drees's lawyer, Bradford Dorrance of Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal also declined to comment.

|

Read More

Stevens & Lee Denies Discriminating Against Pregnant Legal Assistant