Google hit with job discrimination lawsuit

A former Google sales executive has filed a lawsuit against the search giant, alleging it engaged in job discrimination while she was pregnant with quadruplets.

Christina Elwell, who was promoted to national sales director in late 2003, alleges her supervisor began discriminating against her in May 2004, a month after informing him of her pregnancy and the medical complications she was encountering, according to the lawsuit filed July 17 in a U.S. District Court in New York.

Job discrimination lawsuits are nothing new for corporate America, even for companies like Google, whose founders built a company with the motto "don't be evil."

Google and attorneys for Elwell did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

According to the lawsuit, Elwell's supervisor, Timothy Armstrong, Google's vice president of national sales, became concerned about her inability to travel for several weeks due to complications with her pregnancy. And in May 2004, he allegedly showed Elwell an organizational chart, in which her position had been deleted and asked her to accept a position in Google's operations department.

But Elwell, who also lost two of her four unborn children that month, told Armstrong she viewed the position as a demotion and one that would not require any of the sales skills she acquired over a 15-year history.

Within a week of this discussion, Elwell's proposal to move from being a national sales director to an East Coast regional sales director was rejected by Armstrong, who appointed a salesman that Elwell had previously trained and who had no Internet sales experience, according to the lawsuit.

"Armstrong called Elwell into his office and told her that she was an HR nightmare and that he no longer wanted her in the New York office," according to the lawsuit, noting Armstrong allegedly expressed concern that Elwell was discussing her situation with co-workers and views that her pregnancy was the reason for his actions.

A day after meeting in his office, Armstrong called Elwell on the phone and fired her, saying she "did not understand the direction the company was taking and that she had spoken to others," according to the lawsuit.

After meeting with an employee in Google's human resources department in mid-June 2004 to discuss her severance package, Elwell received an e-mail from Google executive Shona Brown who offered to reinstate Elwell to the operations position.

But also in the e-mail, Brown allegedly accused Elwell's husband of "acting under false pretenses by telling Google that Elwell was having a health crisis," according to the lawsuit.

After Google's director of human resources, Stacy Sullivan, contacted Elwell and told her she had been terminated improperly, Elwell accepted the operations position, even though she viewed it as a demotion.

On June 29, Elwell lost the third child of the unborn quadruplets.

Two days after Elwell's return to work on July 19, she was ordered by doctors to "remain out of work due to the stressful circumstances created by Google and Armstrong, which were putting her already high-risk pregnancy at further risk," according to the lawsuit.

Elwell went on disability leave, and while on leave gave birth to the remaining quadruplet.

On Aug. 18, the day before Google's long-awaited IPO debuted, Elwell filed a discrimination complaint against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Elwell returned to work in January, following maternity leave, and was informed she would have to take the "low-level operations position" that was offered prior to her disability leave, rather than a sales position. She refused to accept the job and was discharged from Google, according to the lawsuit.

[raitchison]

This is ridiculous

Here is a woman who clearly wasn't able to fulfill the responsibilities for her job and is complaining because her carreer (rightfully) suffered.

Had this been a male executive that couldn't travel because of health issues they would have recieved the same treatment or worse.

The article doesn't say how old the executive was, or if she had undergone fertility treatments but I'd be willing to bet that the answers to those questions are "Over 35" and "yes".

[duerra]

Yeah, you keep betting

Making pure speculation like that just makes you look like an ignorant ass. Learn the facts about the case (most of which we still didn't get here, because google has offered no official response).

And beside all that, women have protection from such discrimination (should it be proven) during pregnancy anyway. It's required by law.

The other real reason

The locic is simple, that Google is likely self-insured, and was tired of paying the high medical costs asssociated with this employee. This is the biggest scam from corporate america that folks have not quite picked up on. In other words, get sick, your fired for performance reasons. Why keep someone on who will cost $100K in medical next year?

[wearehalftheworld]

I'd be willing to bet

I'd be willing to bet that you, as a male living in a male dominated society, has never HAD to choose between having a child or your career. Why should women lose out and be punished simply because they have been graced with the ability to give birth (to ******* like you).

[raitchison]

This is ridiculous

Here is a woman who clearly wasn't able to fulfill the responsibilities for her job and is complaining because her carreer (rightfully) suffered.

Had this been a male executive that couldn't travel because of health issues they would have recieved the same treatment or worse.

The article doesn't say how old the executive was, or if she had undergone fertility treatments but I'd be willing to bet that the answers to those questions are "Over 35" and "yes".

[duerra]

Yeah, you keep betting

Making pure speculation like that just makes you look like an ignorant ass. Learn the facts about the case (most of which we still didn't get here, because google has offered no official response).

And beside all that, women have protection from such discrimination (should it be proven) during pregnancy anyway. It's required by law.

The other real reason

The locic is simple, that Google is likely self-insured, and was tired of paying the high medical costs asssociated with this employee. This is the biggest scam from corporate america that folks have not quite picked up on. In other words, get sick, your fired for performance reasons. Why keep someone on who will cost $100K in medical next year?

[wearehalftheworld]

I'd be willing to bet

I'd be willing to bet that you, as a male living in a male dominated society, has never HAD to choose between having a child or your career. Why should women lose out and be punished simply because they have been graced with the ability to give birth (to ******* like you).

[mbjc88]

Employer Targetting

She was 35, you were right.

Makes one wonder if it is even worth it to be an employer creating work for others.

Sometimes they must feel like "Why bother?"

[mbjc88]

Employer Targetting

She was 35, you were right.

Makes one wonder if it is even worth it to be an employer creating work for others.

Sometimes they must feel like "Why bother?"

wake up and stop draging your knuckels

this kind of crap happens all the time and the big corps get away with it, usually with a slap on the hand or the pocket book, which doesn't hurt them much...then they get right back to their unethical ways of dealing with their people. The employers have the council on retainer.
Perhaps if they teated their employees with the respect and diplomacy that could be used they would find themselves more profitable in the long run and spending less time in the courts. If companies do the right thing, people rarely choose to drag their lives through a frivolous lawsuit...and by the way, when was the last time you caried triplets? And, who cares how they were conceived or what age she is? Either she was qualified for protected medical leave or she wasn't...what if it had been prostate cancer? Get real!

[tlite722]

that's right...blame the employer or just the male gender

typical.

having children is a choice. employers and fellow employees should NOT have to suffer or otherwise accommodate people for making a lifestyle choice. COULD they? sure, but that should be up to the employer not the government. google doesn't stop doing business just because someone needs to take time off for a personal choice, right? i mean, what if a single male wanted to go travel the world for 3 months. should google hold his position for him? how about if he made a personal choice to move out of state. should his choice be accommodated and he be allowed to work from home? aside from the alleged comments made by the boss that he could have done without, google was more than accommodating to her.

this person was a NATIONAL sales director. National sales people TRAVEL and SELL to clients. this is a KEY job requirement. if you can't travel, then how do you fulfill your job duties? you just push your responsibilities on someone else. this principle applies to all businesses. if anyone, man or woman, cannot perform their job functions due to a personal lifestyle choice, then they should be held back or terminated.

wake up and stop draging your knuckels

this kind of crap happens all the time and the big corps get away with it, usually with a slap on the hand or the pocket book, which doesn't hurt them much...then they get right back to their unethical ways of dealing with their people. The employers have the council on retainer.
Perhaps if they teated their employees with the respect and diplomacy that could be used they would find themselves more profitable in the long run and spending less time in the courts. If companies do the right thing, people rarely choose to drag their lives through a frivolous lawsuit...and by the way, when was the last time you caried triplets? And, who cares how they were conceived or what age she is? Either she was qualified for protected medical leave or she wasn't...what if it had been prostate cancer? Get real!

[tlite722]

that's right...blame the employer or just the male gender

typical.

having children is a choice. employers and fellow employees should NOT have to suffer or otherwise accommodate people for making a lifestyle choice. COULD they? sure, but that should be up to the employer not the government. google doesn't stop doing business just because someone needs to take time off for a personal choice, right? i mean, what if a single male wanted to go travel the world for 3 months. should google hold his position for him? how about if he made a personal choice to move out of state. should his choice be accommodated and he be allowed to work from home? aside from the alleged comments made by the boss that he could have done without, google was more than accommodating to her.

this person was a NATIONAL sales director. National sales people TRAVEL and SELL to clients. this is a KEY job requirement. if you can't travel, then how do you fulfill your job duties? you just push your responsibilities on someone else. this principle applies to all businesses. if anyone, man or woman, cannot perform their job functions due to a personal lifestyle choice, then they should be held back or terminated.

Nope! Macho Guys you are wrong.

Sorry guys, we are in the wrong on this one. Put your testosterone and macho egos away. Lots of people (male and female) in high travel positions have had medical problems and been demoted or fired improperly. The law exists for "all" of us to protect us from improper labor practices, which is what this was. It is not about choice on the person's part, it is about an employer (in this case the higher up) acting improperly towards its employee.

Any of you Macho Men out there making a choice to stay in shape and avoid a heart attack? That is a personal choice too. So when you are recovering from your triple bypass you think it is okay to have your employer drop you like a hot potato? Thought not.

[Willie Winkie]

Correct!

The earlier responses clearly demonstrate the prejudice that women still face regarding this type of behavior. I'd like to see Google slapped hard for this one and some serious disciplinary action towards the manager that caused the suit. The proper protocol in these instances is to employ temporary personnel to fill in for the employee suffering the health issue. Barring that, the employee must be guaranteed a COMPARABLE position upon their return. To the macho boys: read some HR law before you get in some real trouble.

thank you and well put

thank you for attempting to educate those who seem to not be educated in this area...well put!

[tlite722]

the answer to your question is yes...

"Sorry guys, we are in the wrong on this one. Put your testosterone and macho egos away."

Your opinion, not fact. And it doesn't have anything to do with macho. It has to do with fairness to both parties involved in the issue.

"Lots of people (male and female) in high travel positions have had medical problems and been demoted or fired improperly. The law exists for "all" of us to protect us from improper labor practices, which is what this was."

This is a nice general statement without any examples. Here's another one: Lots of people in high travel positions with medical problems have performed their jobs without incident and have been PROMOTED due to their hard work and dedication to their job and/or company. The law should be there to be fair to both worker and business owner. We can argue the correctness of the law til the cows come home and still get nowhere. That's why stating "well that's the law" is not a good argument for determining what is right or wrong or common sense.

"It is not about choice on the person's part, it is about an employer (in this case the higher up) acting improperly towards its employee."

Its ABSOLUTELY about choice. having a baby is not a job requirement. i have plenty of peers at my work that are women that have decided that their careers a priority and they get the same opportunity as the men and get paid the same too. if an employee cannot perform a job due to a personal decision, then the employer should be able to take action to restore productivity. like i said before, i think it should be left to the company owner to decide. they could decide to hold the position for a person but they should not be forced to by law.

"Any of you Macho Men out there making a choice to stay in shape and avoid a heart attack? That is a personal choice too. So when you are recovering from your triple bypass you think it is okay to have your employer drop you like a hot potato?"

actually, yes. if my job requires me to be physically fit (like a fitness trainer or professional athlete) then my employer has every right to terminate me. if i suffer a stroke and cannot speak or heavily slur because i choose to smoke and i'm a customer service rep that answers phones, then as sad as it sounds...yes, i deserve to be terminated or relocated in the company at the discretion of the employer.

Nope! Macho Guys you are wrong.

Sorry guys, we are in the wrong on this one. Put your testosterone and macho egos away. Lots of people (male and female) in high travel positions have had medical problems and been demoted or fired improperly. The law exists for "all" of us to protect us from improper labor practices, which is what this was. It is not about choice on the person's part, it is about an employer (in this case the higher up) acting improperly towards its employee.

Any of you Macho Men out there making a choice to stay in shape and avoid a heart attack? That is a personal choice too. So when you are recovering from your triple bypass you think it is okay to have your employer drop you like a hot potato? Thought not.

[Willie Winkie]

Correct!

The earlier responses clearly demonstrate the prejudice that women still face regarding this type of behavior. I'd like to see Google slapped hard for this one and some serious disciplinary action towards the manager that caused the suit. The proper protocol in these instances is to employ temporary personnel to fill in for the employee suffering the health issue. Barring that, the employee must be guaranteed a COMPARABLE position upon their return. To the macho boys: read some HR law before you get in some real trouble.

thank you and well put

thank you for attempting to educate those who seem to not be educated in this area...well put!

[tlite722]

the answer to your question is yes...

"Sorry guys, we are in the wrong on this one. Put your testosterone and macho egos away."

Your opinion, not fact. And it doesn't have anything to do with macho. It has to do with fairness to both parties involved in the issue.

"Lots of people (male and female) in high travel positions have had medical problems and been demoted or fired improperly. The law exists for "all" of us to protect us from improper labor practices, which is what this was."

This is a nice general statement without any examples. Here's another one: Lots of people in high travel positions with medical problems have performed their jobs without incident and have been PROMOTED due to their hard work and dedication to their job and/or company. The law should be there to be fair to both worker and business owner. We can argue the correctness of the law til the cows come home and still get nowhere. That's why stating "well that's the law" is not a good argument for determining what is right or wrong or common sense.

"It is not about choice on the person's part, it is about an employer (in this case the higher up) acting improperly towards its employee."

Its ABSOLUTELY about choice. having a baby is not a job requirement. i have plenty of peers at my work that are women that have decided that their careers a priority and they get the same opportunity as the men and get paid the same too. if an employee cannot perform a job due to a personal decision, then the employer should be able to take action to restore productivity. like i said before, i think it should be left to the company owner to decide. they could decide to hold the position for a person but they should not be forced to by law.

"Any of you Macho Men out there making a choice to stay in shape and avoid a heart attack? That is a personal choice too. So when you are recovering from your triple bypass you think it is okay to have your employer drop you like a hot potato?"

actually, yes. if my job requires me to be physically fit (like a fitness trainer or professional athlete) then my employer has every right to terminate me. if i suffer a stroke and cannot speak or heavily slur because i choose to smoke and i'm a customer service rep that answers phones, then as sad as it sounds...yes, i deserve to be terminated or relocated in the company at the discretion of the employer.

[raitchison]

I agree, _everyone_ should be treated fairly & equally

Had it been a man suffering from prostate cancer or any other ailment, there is no doubt that he would have recieved the same treatment this woman did, or worse, and prostate cancer, unlike pregnancy isn't a voluntary condition.

Here we have a case where a woman chose to put off having kids to advance her career. When she got where she wanted in her career she decided to have kids despite being too old. Google's health care system probably paid an ungodly amount of money for the fertility treatments.

Once she did get pregnant there were complications (not surprisingly since her body knew she wasn't supposed to be pregnant to begin with) she basically "checked out" of her job but expected it to still be around for her when she wanted it.

She demonstrated with crystal clarity that the success of the company wasn't one of her priorities, it's not like they could call up the local temp agency and get a "VP of National Sales" for however many months she was going to be out. Or was somebody else (likely her staff) supposed to "cover for her" while she was gone in addition to doing their own work?

Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, this include employers. Nobody deserves special treatment.

Maybe I should, in my mid 30s decide to take up professional football, it doesn't matter that I'm too old I was busy working on my career when I was younger. If there are "complications", such as a broken back, I'll just go on disability and use the law to force my company to keep my job open and waiting for me.

[raitchison]

I agree, _everyone_ should be treated fairly & equally

Had it been a man suffering from prostate cancer or any other ailment, there is no doubt that he would have recieved the same treatment this woman did, or worse, and prostate cancer, unlike pregnancy isn't a voluntary condition.

Here we have a case where a woman chose to put off having kids to advance her career. When she got where she wanted in her career she decided to have kids despite being too old. Google's health care system probably paid an ungodly amount of money for the fertility treatments.

Once she did get pregnant there were complications (not surprisingly since her body knew she wasn't supposed to be pregnant to begin with) she basically "checked out" of her job but expected it to still be around for her when she wanted it.

She demonstrated with crystal clarity that the success of the company wasn't one of her priorities, it's not like they could call up the local temp agency and get a "VP of National Sales" for however many months she was going to be out. Or was somebody else (likely her staff) supposed to "cover for her" while she was gone in addition to doing their own work?

Everyone deserves to be treated fairly, this include employers. Nobody deserves special treatment.

Maybe I should, in my mid 30s decide to take up professional football, it doesn't matter that I'm too old I was busy working on my career when I was younger. If there are "complications", such as a broken back, I'll just go on disability and use the law to force my company to keep my job open and waiting for me.

[unknown unknown]

The story is a bit one sided

since Google choose not comment. Many companies have policies about not commenting on pending litigation, so it's not surprising.

For those who want to know what rights an employee has after taking leave for medical for family reasons under the Family/Medical Leave Act of 1993, which covers leave for such things as pregnancy.

http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-family-medical-leave-rights.html

Debates over whether this law is right or wrong are pointless and such things would best be taken up with your represenatives in congress. The courts only make decisions based on the rule of law. As it stands now FMLA of 1993 is the law.

[unknown unknown]

The story is a bit one sided

since Google choose not comment. Many companies have policies about not commenting on pending litigation, so it's not surprising.

For those who want to know what rights an employee has after taking leave for medical for family reasons under the Family/Medical Leave Act of 1993, which covers leave for such things as pregnancy.

http://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-family-medical-leave-rights.html

Debates over whether this law is right or wrong are pointless and such things would best be taken up with your represenatives in congress. The courts only make decisions based on the rule of law. As it stands now FMLA of 1993 is the law.

What if....

So, if the next President of the US is a woman, and she decided to have a child while in office, do your turn the country over to the VP for a year?

[ntrlsur]

Not a good example

POTUS is a position in which someone ca be laying in a hospital and perform the duties ( Reference FDR ) The only time Presidentail powers would pass to the VP is in the POTUS is not concusious (sp) or the president is under duress.

[tlite722]

well...

it would not be for a year as the president would have vast resources in which to care for a new born that ordinary folks would not have. however, i disagree with the other poster that her powers would not pass merely because she is not unconscience. unconscience is not the only metric in which the president's powers can pass. the constitution does not even mention a state of consciousness. if the president becomes incapacitated in any way or his/her judgment becomes impaired, then powers must pass. i would argue that the pregnancy itself is not enough but the act of child birth is. although she would be conscious, most would argue that she would be in no position to make important decisions and no one knows how long child birth will take. therefore, for that short period, presidential powers should pass.

now, let me state that i think a woman could do just as good a job as a man as president. BUT, i think if there ever was a female president and she decided to have children while in office, that would be the last female president this country would elect for quite some time if not ever. i think that the public demands a lot from a president and rightfully so.

What if....

So, if the next President of the US is a woman, and she decided to have a child while in office, do your turn the country over to the VP for a year?

[ntrlsur]

Not a good example

POTUS is a position in which someone ca be laying in a hospital and perform the duties ( Reference FDR ) The only time Presidentail powers would pass to the VP is in the POTUS is not concusious (sp) or the president is under duress.

[tlite722]

well...

it would not be for a year as the president would have vast resources in which to care for a new born that ordinary folks would not have. however, i disagree with the other poster that her powers would not pass merely because she is not unconscience. unconscience is not the only metric in which the president's powers can pass. the constitution does not even mention a state of consciousness. if the president becomes incapacitated in any way or his/her judgment becomes impaired, then powers must pass. i would argue that the pregnancy itself is not enough but the act of child birth is. although she would be conscious, most would argue that she would be in no position to make important decisions and no one knows how long child birth will take. therefore, for that short period, presidential powers should pass.

now, let me state that i think a woman could do just as good a job as a man as president. BUT, i think if there ever was a female president and she decided to have children while in office, that would be the last female president this country would elect for quite some time if not ever. i think that the public demands a lot from a president and rightfully so.

[Millerboy]

Google is discriminative and sexist!

The woman returned to her work after having a baby. She was fully capable of doing the job after the pregnancy. Why demote her then? Google should be killed by Microsoft or Yahoo.

[Millerboy]

Google is discriminative and sexist!

The woman returned to her work after having a baby. She was fully capable of doing the job after the pregnancy. Why demote her then? Google should be killed by Microsoft or Yahoo.

[mortis9]

call it what you like

women have legal protection against such happenings. even though some of the details as laid out in the cnet story sound 'fishy' to me and even rediculous in places, it matters not. the protections aren't case by case, they're sweeping, plain and simple, and this kind of behavior cannot be allowed from corporate America. her superior should have thought of the consequences of his actions, whether his intentions we clear or not, subtlety is key. i'm don't doubt from the details this woman was making a big needless fuss, but even so, in most cases people are not. this happens not only to women, it happens to men (prostate cancer, etc...), and not just older people (cancer gets the young ones too).

[mortis9]

call it what you like

women have legal protection against such happenings. even though some of the details as laid out in the cnet story sound 'fishy' to me and even rediculous in places, it matters not. the protections aren't case by case, they're sweeping, plain and simple, and this kind of behavior cannot be allowed from corporate America. her superior should have thought of the consequences of his actions, whether his intentions we clear or not, subtlety is key. i'm don't doubt from the details this woman was making a big needless fuss, but even so, in most cases people are not. this happens not only to women, it happens to men (prostate cancer, etc...), and not just older people (cancer gets the young ones too).

[202578300049013666264380294439]

Heh. I don't think so.

Honestly, anyone who would go into a presidency job *should*
fully expect to dedicate their time to the country. If it was a
woman who was deciding to get pregnant, unless she could
handle the pressure of having kids AND looking over the country
(and I'd have great respect for someone like that) they should
get impeached. And frankly, I don't think anyone would vote for
a president that stupid to take time off their job. (Aside from
overlooking the fact that the average age most people would
vote for someone qualifying for presidency is usually the age
that women would go into menopause--thus being unable to
have children.)

[202578300049013666264380294439]

Heh. I don't think so.

Honestly, anyone who would go into a presidency job *should*
fully expect to dedicate their time to the country. If it was a
woman who was deciding to get pregnant, unless she could
handle the pressure of having kids AND looking over the country
(and I'd have great respect for someone like that) they should
get impeached. And frankly, I don't think anyone would vote for
a president that stupid to take time off their job. (Aside from
overlooking the fact that the average age most people would
vote for someone qualifying for presidency is usually the age
that women would go into menopause--thus being unable to
have children.)