Blogger Buzz "Pumped" Up

Quite a few blogs and websites are affronted by a ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court on a case where a woman was fired for taking unauthorized breaks to pump milk. As reported by a Wall Street Journal blog, the court ruled that the woman's attorneys did not offer enough proof that the employer's actions were motivated by discrimination.

But people are taking exception to the question that the court dodged: whether breast-feeding mothers and their actions in pumping milk are protected by pregnancy-discrimination laws.

The woman was fired after taking unscheduled breaks from work to pump milk. She fed her five-month-old baby before reporting to work for her 6 a.m. shift, but found waiting until her scheduled 11 a.m. break to pump milk was too difficult. She asked her bosses either to let her take an extended break at 10 a.m., or to extend a brief 10-minute break she was allowed at 8 a.m., but neither request was granted. The woman began taking an unscheduled restroom break around 10 a.m. every day to use her breast pump. A supervisor told her she was violating work rules by not waiting until her 11 a.m. break, and she was later fired.

Her employer contends that her firing wasn’t related to her need to pump milk, but to the simple fact that she failed to follow directions and violated workplace rules by taking unauthorized breaks during her work shift. The court did not reach whether this action violated pregnancy-discrimination laws.

The objecting blogs point out that the Ohio Supreme Court didn't exactly dodge the question, as it basically said that the woman's admittance of insubordination shows the firing was not discriminatory--even though that insubordination was caused by a pregnancy-related reason.