(Reuters) – A former cosmetics saleswoman for Procter & Gamble Co 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 on the subject of 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 on the subject of 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 talk while dealing along with customers due to the fact that 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 required her to take breaks that were deducted from the leave time she was entitled to under the Family and Health care Leave Act. She says she planned to take leave just after her child was born.
“For (P&G), ever vigilant regarding the image of its makeup shop sales associates, pregnancy did not comport along with the ‘suitable look,'” the lawsuit said.
Before she became pregnant, the match said, Kantrowitz told a supervisor she preferred youngsters and he responded that “pregnancy is not section of the uniform.”
When Kantrowitz was fired, the firm told her it was due to the fact that she possessed taken “tester” products for individual use, according to the lawsuit. Yet P&G encouraged its cosmetics staff to do so, the match says, and never ever cautioned Kantrowitz versus it throughout her time along with the company.
Pregnancy discrimination has actually been a leading problem for teams that concentrate on employment protections for women, along along with pay parity and wage raises in industries that employ disproportionate numbers of women.
The problem received national focus last year, Once the U.S. Utmost Court ruled that United Parcel Program Inc improperly denied a pregnant driver’s request not to raise massive packages. The court, in a 6-3 decision, said companies need to supply legitimate company justifications to deny accommodations to pregnant employees, and cannot just 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)
Published: April 16, 2016 — 7:46 AM EDT
Please permit JavaScript to see the comments powered by Disqus.
