Hobby Lobby Doesn't Want You to Be Pregnant, Either

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jasper76**

"Hobby Lobby Allegedly Fired Employee Due to Pregnancy" by Sofia Resnick, 7/29/2014 (http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/07/29/hobby-lobby-allegedly-fired-employee-due-pregnancy/)

When a very pregnant Felicia Allen applied for medical leave from her job at Hobby Lobby three years ago, one might think that the company best known for denying its employees insurance coverage of certain contraceptives—on the false grounds that they cause abortions—would show equal concern for helping one of its employees when she learned she was pregnant.

Instead, Allen says the self-professed evangelical Christian arts-and-crafts chain fired her and then tried to prevent her from accessing unemployment benefits.

“They didn’t even want me to come back after having my baby, to provide for it,” she says.

Her allegations—as well as those brought by other former Hobby Lobby employees—call into question the company’s public claims when it comes to protecting life and operating its business with Christian values. Additionally, they highlight a practice by which Hobby Lobby prevents its employees from seeking justice through the courts.

In a phone interview with RH Reality Check, Allen, now 32, said she was stunned when her supervisor at the Hobby Lobby store in Flowood, Mississippi, told her she would be terminated for taking unpaid time off to have her baby.

Felicia Allen
Allen had been hired as a part-time cashier in late July 2010. Shortly after starting the job, she learned she was four months’ pregnant with her third child. Because she had not been working for very long, Allen did not qualify for leave under the federal Family Medical Leave Act, which is what she said the Oklahoma City-based chain offers for maternity leave. Nervous, Allen went to her supervisor.

“I asked her would I lose my job due to me being four months and only having five months before I have my child. She told me ‘no,’” Allen said. “I felt like everything was OK. I had talked to my boss, and she let me know that everything would be OK. I would still have my job.”

But five months later, when the time came to take her leave of absence, Allen says her supervisor told her she would be terminated but could reapply later on. She says she tried to come back to work three weeks after her child was born, to no avail.

“I was like, I can’t get fired,” Allen recalls. “She can’t terminate me because I have to go have my child. I started asking everybody on the job, ‘Can they do this?’ And even the assistant manager who had just got hired [said,] ‘No, that’s not right.’”

Hobby Lobby did not respond to multiple requests to tell its side of the story or to answer questions about its maternity leave and other company policies.

When Allen applied for unemployment benefits, she says Hobby Lobby’s corporate office gave the unemployment agency a false version of events, claiming she could have taken off personal leave but chose not to. In the end, Allen says she won her claim for unemployment benefits, but she felt she had been wrongly discriminated based on the fact that she was pregnant. In February 2012 she sued Hobby Lobby, but her lawsuit was swiftly dropped because, like most—if not all—Hobby Lobby employees, Allen had signed away her rights to sue the company.

Though the multibillion-dollar, nearly 600-store chain took its legal claim against the federal government all the way to the Supreme Court when it didn’t want to honor the health insurance requirements of the Affordable Care Act, the company forbids its employees from seeking justice in the court of law.

Allen had signed a binding arbitration agreement upon taking the job, though she says she doesn’t remember doing so. The agreement, which all Hobby Lobby employees are required to sign, forces employees to resolve legal disputes outside of court through a process known as arbitration.

Arbitration has many benefits: It is usually vastly cheaper than litigation, and often allows parties to stave off potential reputational damage by settling disputes in private.

Hobby Lobby is in the minority (albeit a growing minority) of corporations that require employees to sign binding arbitration agreements. These agreements are more commonly used by corporations in consumer product agreements.

In recent years, as more companies have favored employment arbitration over litigation, the practice has garnered widespread criticism as being less fair for employees. Companies like Hobby Lobby claim that arbitration is better for both parties because it tends to take less time and money, and usually employers are required to cover employees’ legal fees.

Alex Colvin, a professor of conflict resolution at Cornell University and an expert on employment arbitration, agrees that arbitration tends to be much shorter than litigation, which can drag out for years, but he says the system is unequal and disproportionately favors corporations. In a phone interview, he told RH Reality Check that corporations generally institute an arbitration-only policy out of fear of widespread lawsuits and to keep information on disputes out of the public eye.

“I think it’s an interesting confluence here with Hobby Lobby being in the news with that big case, but if that were an employment case where an employee wanted to make a claim, we would never see that case at the Supreme Court because it would be stayed in arbitration,” Colvin said. “So, ironically, Hobby Lobby gets to go to the Supreme Court because they want to challenge this, but their own employees don’t get to go to court.”

He estimates that approximately 25 percent of corporations have mandatory employment arbitration policies. His 2011 empirical study on employment arbitration outcomes in the United States, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, found that the employee win rate (approximately 21 percent) and award amounts (median $36,500; mean $109,858) among more than 1,200 arbitration cases decided between 2003 and 2007 were significantly lower than the employee win rate and award amount among employment litigation trials.

Colvin says it’s common for lawyers that generally represent plaintiffs’ claims not to take arbitration cases because they’re harder to win and the awards tend to be smaller than in lawsuits. This rang true for Allen; her lawyers at Watson & Norris PLLC in Jackson, Mississippi, declined to pursue her arbitration case.

To be sure, Felicia Allen is only one among the thousands of employees who have worked for Hobby Lobby since the early 1970s, many of whom have likely worked for the company without issue. And, to be clear, it’s only her side of the story.

According to federal court records, over the years, several employees have filed job discrimination lawsuits against Hobby Lobby claiming age, disability, race, and sex discrimination—which is common for many corporations. But due to the fact that Hobby Lobby avoids lawsuits and the fact that little information about arbitration cases is made public, it’s difficult to evaluate the company’s treatment of its employees beyond its assurances that they are paid above minimum wage and well taken care of.

“Christians Are Not Free to Sue Other Christians”

One thing that sets apart Hobby Lobby’s arbitration policy from most corporations is its allowance for Christian-influenced arbitration. The mutual arbitration agreement Allen signed gives employees the option of choosing to find an arbitrator either through the nonprofit American Arbitration Association (AAA)—the largest dispute-resolution service provider in the United States—or the Institute for Christian Conciliation (ICC).

The latter is run by a Billings, Montana-based nonprofit called Peacemaker Ministries and administers “Christian conciliation,” which is a form of religious arbitration described on its website as “a process for reconciling people and resolving disputes out of court in a biblical manner.” It’s a type of conflict resolution geared toward churches and Christian organizations. (Jewish and Muslim organizations use similar types of religious arbitration to handle disputes.)

Among the principles that drive Peacemaker Ministries is the idea that:

Generally, Christians are not free to sue other Christians, at least not until they have exhausted the process that Jesus sets forth in Matthew 18:15-20 and 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. God instructs Christians to resolve their disputes within the church itself, with the assistance of other Christians if necessary.

Allen, who now has four children and works at Xerox while pursuing an associate’s degree in accounting, says she was never aware that she could pursue arbitration—neither the secular nor the Christian kind.

And despite the outwardly Christian appearance of the Green family, which owns Hobby Lobby and is currently attempting to build a bible museum in the nation’s capital, Allen says she did not witness many acts of Christianity at her store or from her corporate managers.

“How can you be Christian and lie about something to hinder your employee or don’t want them to come back after they’ve had their baby?” Allen said. “Or you’re taking up for your manager knowing that they had done the wrong thing. I feel like that’s not being Christian at all. That’s why I don’t even shop there anymore. I used to shop at that store all the time.”

**kronk**

" Shortly after starting the job, she learned she was four months’ pregnant with her third child"

I don't believe this part of her story. Sounds like she got preggers then realized she needed medical insurance. 4 months and didn't know it? Pull the other one...

However, you can't fire someone for having a kid. Hobby Lobby will pay out the ass on this one.

**hotsauceman1**

One just opened near me. When the last case hit is was "Ok, they are not providing only certain ones, but atleast alot of family planning" and was going to visit it. Not now

**Frazzled**

I'm sure someone cares besides the lefty spin machine.

**Ouze**

I doubt Hobby Lobby will wind up paying - I suspect her arbitration contract is airtight.

Mandatory binding arbitration is the devil, and it's pretty much never in an individual's best interests to agree to it.

**streamdragon**

kronk wrote:
4 months and didn't know it? Pull the other one...

There are plenty of other stories of people not realizing they were pregnant. Hell, my mother was 5 months along when she found out she was having my older brother. Granted, she was told she'd never have children, so she had every reason NOT to think she was pregnant.

**Ouze**

I did personally know a chick who found out she was pregnant 3 months in... but I gotta say, 4 months in seems like a reach. Not that it matters, really.

**Ensis Ferrae**

kronk wrote:
" Shortly after starting the job, she learned she was four months’ pregnant with her third child"

I don't believe this part of her story. Sounds like she got preggers then realized she needed medical insurance. 4 months and didn't know it? Pull the other one...

Did you see the location??

I may be leaping to conclusions here, but the store being in Mississippi, and her "only finding out" 4 months into a pregnancy tells me that she was already a tad on the "plump" side of things.

And I may be wrong, but I know of plenty of places where if you are cut loose for any reason (quit, get laid off, fired, etc) there is a minimum time requirement that must pass before you can be rehired, and I'm fairly certain that 3 weeks is within that time frame.

**hotsauceman1**

Ehhh, that could easily be mistake for weight gain at four months.
And no, You cannot fire a women for eing pregnant ever

**nkelsch**

She wasn't fired for having a kid, she was fired for being AWOL and not having leave/approved absence.

She would have to be terminated and re-apply later. That is what happens to employees who do not have the minimum required time into a job. Sounds like when she came back, they didn't want to re-hire her. Unless there was a 'reason' it seems like they could have just re-hired her and moved on.

The issue is not with the pregnancy... the issue is if she was told incorrect things. If they had been consistent since day one and said "You won't have had the required time worked to justify FMLA, we won't be able to guarantee you a job should you leave." They would have been good and she could have spent those 5 months looking elsewhere for employment which would have accepted her time off. She was not fired for having a kid, she was fired because she didn't show up to work while she was giving birth and the 3 weeks afterwards. And legally, her absence was not protected by law so she had no ground to stand on. The only issue here is if the company gave her two different answers or changed an agreement mid-stream, but it sounds like her first 'agreement' was informal and not documented and could have been a supervisor who spoke out of turn.

Of course the signing away your rights is a different issue... take the kings coin, do the kings bidding, but this very issue happens to pregnant women all the time. Not all jobs are protected for childbirth.

This is why women of childbearing age are discriminated against constantly. Oh? You 24 and have an engagement ring on your finger? So that means in the next 2 years of your employment I need to deal with a month long 'mentally checked out' wedding phase, a Honeymoon when you have 1 week a year leave and probably 9 months later maternity leave? Ok... And Steve is just as qualified? It is not discrimination if the other candidate is also qualified right?

These patterns of thought happen all the time and you can't do anything about it really. Having a new employee guaranteed to be out for weeks beyond vacation can harm businesses in specific industries.

**Ensis Ferrae**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ehhh, that could easily be mistake for weight gain at four months.
And no, You cannot fire a women for eing pregnant ever

I know this. I'm guessing that HL is taking the stance of "she was fired for nonperformance", or "absenteeism" the first is a fairly standard corporate line, second being that she took unpaid leave and I have no idea if they can do that... but I know you can be fired if you're not at work when youre scheduled.

What I was saying is we KNOW that she was "no longer employed" at Hobby Lobby, but what we don't know is whether Hobby Lobby has a policy that many other's do saying that "if you work at this company, and are no longer employed by the company for ANY reason, you cannot re-apply for employment at the company for X months after being removed from employment"

**streamdragon**

I'd say a significant issue is also HL giving false information to the unemployment benefits board:

When Allen applied for unemployment benefits, she says Hobby Lobby’s corporate office gave the unemployment agency a false version of events, claiming she could have taken off personal leave but chose not to.

**Ensis Ferrae**

streamdragon wrote:
I'd say a significant issue is also HL giving false information to the unemployment benefits board:

When Allen applied for unemployment benefits, she says Hobby Lobby’s corporate office gave the unemployment agency a false version of events, claiming she could have taken off personal leave but chose not to.

That seems to be, at this point a case of "he said, she said" As, I doubt that SHE really knows what HL put to the unemployment office.

**nkelsch**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
I'd say a significant issue is also HL giving false information to the unemployment benefits board:

When Allen applied for unemployment benefits, she says Hobby Lobby’s corporate office gave the unemployment agency a false version of events, claiming she could have taken off personal leave but chose not to.

That seems to be, at this point a case of "he said, she said" As, I doubt that SHE really knows what HL put to the unemployment office.

Yeah, sounds like HR people or a supervisor didn't cross their Ts and dot their Is. The reason for the absence is probably irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

**cincydooley**

streamdragon wrote:
I'd say a significant issue is also HL giving false information to the unemployment benefits board:

When Allen applied for unemployment benefits, she says Hobby Lobby’s corporate office gave the unemployment agency a false version of events, claiming she could have taken off personal leave but chose not to.

According to her, of course.

**jasper76**

Just so its mentioned, there is (a) what is legally wrong, and (b) what is morally wrong.

Looks like all she wanted was unpaid leave and her job back when she had recovered from childbirth. All things being equal, denying these modest accomodations is morally, if not legally, wrong.

When you have grabbed the spotlight as some kind of corporate paragon for pro-life issues as Hobby Lobby has, this is not just morally wrong, it is morally repugnant.

(Of course, these are just allegations. However, Hobby Lobby was given a chance to respond, and chose not to, so there is probably something here.)

**Ensis Ferrae**

jasper76 wrote:

(Of course, these are just allegations. However, Hobby Lobby was given a chance to respond, and chose not to, so there is probably something here.)

That something could be as simple as "she blamed corporate, so now the Corporate people are flying in to this dust speck to investigate this store, and what all went on" and is not making ANY statement until they have checked this out more fully.

**nkelsch**

Also, "Unpaid Leave" is not as easy as it sounds. Many accounting formats simply don't allow it because unpaid leave costs some companies money, especially ones with benefits. So it is not "we don't want you to take unpaid leave" it is "you can't actually take unpaid leave."

That is when you get to AWOP situations where an employee gets a bill for being absent to cover the costs of their benefits for the days they didn't work and didn't use leave to cover those costs.

Technically her benefits would have been terminated retroactively to her first AWOP day on her policy. Her health benefits would have not been valid for her childbirth, but she would have had 60 days to pay COBRA and then have COBRA for the actual childbirth and then potentially return to the company and re-enroll in benefits.

It is not usually simple to just not get a paycheck for a while as there are benefits which have to be paid via your employment for those periods of time.

**cincydooley**

jasper76 wrote:

Looks like all she wanted was unpaid leave and her job back when she had recovered from childbirth.

Again, according to her.

Then there's, you know, the actually law of FMLA:

Q. I have 12 months of service with my employer, but they are not consecutive. Do I still qualify for FMLA?

A. You may. In order to be eligible to take leave under the FMLA, an employee must (1) work for a covered employer, (2) work 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of leave, (3) work at a location where 50 or more employees work at that location or within 75 miles of it, and (4) have worked for the employer for 12 months. The 12 months of employment are not required to be consecutive in order for the employee to qualify for FMLA leave. The regulations clarify, however, that employment prior to a continuous break in service of seven years or more need not be counted unless the break in service is (1) due to an employee’s fulfillment of military obligations, or (2) governed by a collective bargaining agreement or other written agreement.

Now, per that article, it sounds like she definitely didn't qualify for #2.

**streamdragon**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:That seems to be, at this point a case of "he said, she said" As, I doubt that SHE really knows what HL put to the unemployment office.

nkelsch wrote:Yeah, sounds like HR people or a supervisor didn't cross their Ts and dot their Is. The reason for the absence is probably irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

cincydooley wrote:According to her, of course.

Given it went to court, I'm going to guess there was at least some fact checking involved.

**cincydooley**

Then there's the source of the article.....

**jasper76**

nkelsch wrote:
Also, "Unpaid Leave" is not as easy as it sounds. Many accounting formats simply don't allow it because unpaid leave costs some companies money, especially ones with benefits. So it is not "we don't want you to take unpaid leave" it is "you can't actually take unpaid leave."

And I would imagine Paid Leave would cost the company even more money.

**cincydooley**

I guess, based on that article and FMLA's stipulations, I'm having trouble understanding why this is even a "story."

She didn't qualify, period.

**jasper76**

<deleted...misintepreted previous post>

**pities2004**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
One just opened near me. When the last case hit is was "Ok, they are not providing only certain ones, but atleast alot of family planning" and was going to visit it. Not now

It's ok i'll go twice a week to make up for it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
I guess, based on that article and FMLA's stipulations, I'm having trouble understanding why this is even a "story."

She didn't qualify, period.

Please don't bring logic and reason into this conversation.

Thanks

**Breotan**

cincydooley wrote:
I guess, based on that article and FMLA's stipulations, I'm having trouble understanding why this is even a "story."

Two words: Hobby Lobby.

**jasper76**

Breotan wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I guess, based on that article and FMLA's stipulations, I'm having trouble understanding why this is even a "story."
Two words: Hobby Lobby.

There is 0% wrong with Hobby Lobby's newfound media scrutiny. They volunteered for the scruitny by appealing to the courts for special legal exemptions. You better believe there's a cadre of reproductive rights activists scrutinizing their every move just waiting for them to slip up, which is as it should be. They wanted special treatment, and that's exactly what they got.

I'm sure if a corporation somewhow got a special exemption from child labor laws or anti-discrimination laws on religious grounds, they would be exposed to extra scrutiny by labor rights activists and journalists, as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
I guess, based on that article and FMLA's stipulations, I'm having trouble understanding why this is even a "story."

She didn't qualify, period.

It's a story, because some people are interested in where their money goes. Its the same reason that Chic-Filet's anti-civil rights efforts is a story. Chic-Filet to my knowledge has done nothing legally wrong whatsoever. However some of us don't want to give money to corporations that spout hatred against homosexuals. Just like I'm sure some conservatives wouldn't want to give money to a company that made itself a figurehead for abortion, civil rights for homosexuals, anti-guns, etc (I'm not exactly up to date on conservtive hot points ATM, but you get the picture).

I, for example, as someone who would potentially shop at a place like Hobby Lobby, decided I'd spend my money elsewhere when I discovered Hobby Lobby felt it was entitled to special treatment on the grounds of
corporate religious beliefs, and that they felt entitled to force their religion down their employees' throat. For some people, that is probably acceptable behavior, but if its true that they are also not accomodating to people who decide to carry babies to term, which is what they profess to want, then it shows that women who work for Hobby Lobby are not welcome unless they are infertile or abstinent. This likely would influence any self-respecting woman alive to stop shopping there.

**d-usa**

Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.
"We don't believe in abortion." - almost all their inventory is made in China whose policies force over 13 million abortions a year, 5 times the US rate.
"Our Christian values are above all else." - sells religious everything made in China, manufactured by people under slave conditions under a regime that is extremely hostile to Christianity.

**MrDwhitey**

So what you're trying to say is they're hypocrites?

But doesn't Christianity give a pass for the needs to make more money? I mean, that's important above all.

I mean, there's no point being morally virtuous if you can't roll around in more money than you can barely comprehend.

**Howard A Treesong**

I'm surprised contracts signing away your right to sue your employer are legal. Between that and 'at will' States, the power is all in the hands of the employer to do what they like.