Friday, September 9th, 2011
A woman is suing her employer because the company refused to grant her maternity leave when her twins were born through a surrogate.
Kara Krill of Long Island, New York, is suing for breach of contract and discrimination on the basis of her disability. After her first child was born in 2007, Krill was diagnosed with Asherman’s Syndrome, a condition that can cause scar tissue in the uterus and prevent a woman from carrying a pregnancy. In order to have more children, Krill and her husband used a surrogate, who carried and gave birth to twins.
Krill’s company, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, gave her 13 weeks of paid maternity leave when her first child was born. But because she was not carrying and giving birth to the twins herself, Cubist would only grant five days of leave, the amount they give parents who adopt.
Krill’s complaint argues that since she and her husband are the biological parents of their children — the couple had obtained a prebirth order, signed by a judge, confirming the “legal and genetic parentage of Krill’s twins without having to institute adoption proceedings” — she should be given the same paid maternity leave benefits as every other biological mother in the company. Were it not for her disability, she would be receiving paid maternity leave, Krill argues.
The article continues:
[W]hat is the real reason for granting maternity leave?
If maternity leave is offered so that women can recover from what is, at best, the incredibly messy and strenuous business of giving birth, then new mothers like Krill who use surrogates would not really deserve paid leave, since they are not doing the hard yards of labor and delivery.
But paid maternity leave could also be regarded the same way as paid leave for jury duty — something a company does out of civic responsibility. Supporting new mothers as they bond with their children, learn to care for them and give them a good start is beneficial for society and for the survival of the species.
Readers, what do you think? Should women who use a surrogate get maternity leave?
(image via: http://healthinformationworld.com)
Add a Comment
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011
Last week an Illinois appeals court dismissed a case brought by two children against their mom for “bad mothering,” the Chicago Tribune reports.
Steven Miner II, 23, and his sister Kathryn, 20, of Barrington Hills, Illinois, filed the suit against Kimberly Garrity two years ago, asking for more than $50,000 for “emotional distress.”
What qualified as “bad mothering?” From the Tribune:
The alleged offenses include failing to take her daughter to a car show, telling her then-7-year-old son to buckle his seat belt or she would contact police, “haggling” over the amount to spend on party dresses and calling her daughter at midnight to ask that she return home from celebrating homecoming.
The story continues:
Among the exhibits filed in the case is a birthday card Garrity sent her son, who in his lawsuit sought damages because the card was “inappropriate” and failed to include cash or a check. He also alleged she failed to send a card for years or, while he was in college, care packages.
The siblings were represented by three attorneys including their father, Steven A. Miner. According to the Tribune, Garrity divorced Miner in 1995 after ten years of marriage.
The father asserted that this case was “no different from a patient suing a physician ‘for bad doctoring.’” In court papers, he wrote, “Everyone makes mistakes, but … there must be accountability for actions. Parenting is no different.”
The mother’s attorney said the children’s suit was “orchestrated by their father.” From the Tribune:
In court papers, Garrity’s attorney Shelley Smith said the “litany of childish complaints and ingratitude” in the lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by Garrity’s ex-husband to “seek the ultimate revenge” of having her children accuse her of “being an inadequate mother.”
In dismissing the case, the court said mother’s conduct was not “extreme or outrageous.” A victory for the kids, it said, “could potentially open the floodgates to subject family child rearing to … excessive judicial scrutiny and interference.”
(image via: http://www.econ.ucsb.edu)
Add a Comment