LOS ANGELES – A North Hollywood company is being sued by a former employee who alleges she was fired two days after she told a supervisor that she was pregnant and was told she should consider an abortion.
Vanessa Campos, 25, of Lancaster is seeking unspecified damages from Xtetic World Inc., which bills itself on its website as a “boutique aesthetic solution company” representing “the most prestigious brands in pharmaceutical skin care.”
The suit filed Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court alleges wrongful termination, pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination harassment and retaliation and a violation of the state Government Code regarding pregnancy disability leave.
An Xtetic World representative did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Campos began working at Xtetic World in March 2015. Her lawyer, Timothy Kearns, said her job title was social media coordinator.
The plaintiff found out the next month she was pregnant, according to her court papers. She was happy and wanted to let her new employer know the news so they could make future scheduling adjustments while she was on leave, the suit states.
But Campos alleges that when she told a manager identified only as Mira about the news last April 14, the other woman said, “We need somebody who is committed to being here full-time. Have you thought about getting an abortion?”
“(Campos) was shocked and frankly sickened at that statement,” according to the suit, which says she told her boss in reply, “No, I plan on keeping my baby. What you said was not right.”
Campos was fired two days later, even though no one told her she had done anything wrong at work or been disciplined in writing, according to her lawsuit.
It is “clearly no coincidence” that Campos was fired so soon after informing the manager that she was pregnant and being told in response that the company wanted someone to commit to being at work full-time, the suit alleges.
The complaint alleges Campos was targeted for losing her job for coming forward about her pregnancy, which would require future leave to give birth and bond with the child.
Kearns said Campos gave birth to a daughter last fall and had looked for work, but found jobs to be “a bit difficult to find.”
–
Darius White says
The error this business made was not training their management in NOT making ignorant, illegal comments like those that were allegedly made. If this business really wanted to fire this employee, they probably could have done it “without cause” as she was still within her initial 90 days of employment. What seems like a bigger problem (not just in this case but in society as a whole) is the thought that we are in some way “entitled” to have someone pay our way. This is evident when, after an estimated 30 days of employment, she was already looking forward to being paid “while she was on leave” to have her child. If the math is correct (and it’s probably not), the baby was born “last fall”, which implies no later than November. She “found out” she was pregnant in April. That leaves a span of 7 months. Unless the baby was premature (possible), she should have known she was pregnant before she started working for the company. I doubt she mentioned any of this during her interview. It seems like she was looking for a way to have her new employer “pay” for her new bundle of joy, both during the pregnancy (although no mention of medical benefits was given) and while she was “giving birth and bonding with the child.” This is made more clear with the fact that, after the baby was born, she “found jobs to be ‘a bit difficult to find.’” Unless she was dropping the baby off at day care all day, she would have been looking for a part-time job, of which there are hundreds around this area. Of course, part-time jobs don’t provide benefits. So other than the stupid comment allegedly made by the manager, it seems like this business simply didn’t want to incur the expense of having to hire another new employee to cover for who they thought was a full-time employee. In other words, the business wasn’t excited to pay two people while getting work accomplished by one.
Steven says
This makes me sick that businesses can get away with this. This situation happened to a close friend of mine at Hunter Dodge. She went to the Service Manager with an issue concerning the service writer manager and was fired three days later. To make the matter worse the Service Writer Manager is having a love affair with the General Manager to which she can not go to for any assistance. She was told by numerous co-workers that she was fired due to the complaint. But was told it was for changes. The owners, Service manager, and co-workers did not even know she was being fired. When she tried to talk to the owners they turned a blind eye. Also, the General Manager has asked for nude photos from other co-workers. To say the least, Hunter Dodge in Lancaster is ran by money hungry folks that do not care about customers or their employees. They are out for them selves and no wonder there are hundreds of horrible reviews on them. It shows why. It stems from the top and works it way down.