A woman strolls down an empty street in downtown Milan August 28, 2012.
Reuters/Alessandro Garofalo
n”>A former cosmetics saleswoman for Procter & Gamble Co (PG.N) is suing the company, claiming that she was fired after becoming pregnant and being told earlier by a supervisor that “pregnancy is not section of the uniform.”
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan regard Friday by Tiffany Kantrowitz, that for 2 years functioned at P&G’s Dolce and Gabbana makeup shop inside Saks Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.
P&G has actually a licensing contract to make and sell Dolce and Gabbana products, according to a firm representative that declined to comment regard the lawsuit. Neither Dolce and Gabbana nor Saks was named in the lawsuit.
Kantrowitz says she was fired by P&G in February 2015 after asking to be permitted to meet while dealing along with customers since she was pregnant, in violation of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act and a comparable Brand-new York City law.
Instead of accommodating Kantrowitz’s request, the lawsuit said, P&G obliged her to take breaks that were deducted from the leave time she was entitled to under the Family and Clinical Leave Act. She says she planned to take leave just after her child was born.
“For (P&G), ever vigilant concerning the image of its makeup shop sales associates, pregnancy did not comport along with the ‘optimal look,'” the lawsuit said.
Before she became pregnant, the fulfill said, Kantrowitz told a supervisor she wished kids and he responded that “pregnancy is not section of the uniform.”
When Kantrowitz was fired, the firm told her it was since she owned taken “tester” products for individual use, according to the lawsuit. However P&G encouraged its cosmetics staff to do so, the fulfill says, and never ever advised Kantrowitz versus it throughout her time along with the company.
Pregnancy discrimination has actually been a best problem for teams that concentrate on employment protections for women, along along with pay parity and wage enhances in industries that employ disproportionate numbers of women.
The problem received national focus last year, As quickly as the U.S. Ultimate Court ruled that United Parcel Program Inc (UPS.N) improperly denied a pregnant driver’s request not to raise hefty packages. The court, in a 6-3 decision, said companies need to supply legitimate firm excuses to deny accommodations to pregnant employees, and cannot merely say it would certainly be pricey or inconvenient.
The instance is Kantrowitz v. The Procter & Gamble Company, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Brand-new York, No. 1:16-cv-2813.
(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, Brand-new York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Steve Orlofsky)
