THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, January 18, 1997 TAG: 9701180006
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A13 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: Kerry Dougherty
LENGTH: 68 lines
Where are the pro-lifers? Where are the feminists? They ought to be dancing together in the streets of Richmond.
Earlier this month the Virginia Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling - described by one lawyer as ``the most important Virginia court decision for women's rights in the second half of the 20th century.'' The decision has received little fanfare - a footnote on the news pages of the state's newspapers, a barely noticed blip on the legal scene and greeted with curious silence by pro-life activists and feminists, as far as I can tell.
Thanks to the Virginia Supreme Court, no Virginia woman will ever have to choose between having an abortion and keeping her job. The court ruled that firing a woman because she is pregnant or has a baby is illegal.
That's a decision worth celebrating.
Let's go back to 1994 when Lisa Bailey, then a 27-year-old Roanoke-area office worker, was fired from her job because she had a baby. Actually she was sacked sometime while she was on maternity leave, but no one bothered to tell her. When she returned to work her employer told her she had been terminated.
According to Bailey, and undisputed in legal papers filed by her former employer, she was told not to bother coming back to work after giving birth to a baby because she was now an ``unreliable employee.''
Children get sick, you know. Mothers miss work.
Furthermore, Ms. Bailey says her ex-employer, Ron Scott, president of Scott-Gallaher equipment rental, told her he believed women should stay home with their children.
After she was fired Ms. Bailey could have done what countless other women in similar situations have done before her: silently curse men, lament that life is unfair - and look for a new job.
Thankfully, Ms. Bailey didn't do that. She realized that by hauling her former employer into court she might be able to help other women.
Bailey filed suit in Roanoke Circuit Court in 1995, but Judge Clifford Weckstein tossed the case out, ruling that under Virginia laws - or lack thereof - she was simply an ``at-will'' employee. Being canned because she had a baby did not constitute gender discrimination, Judge Weckstein said.
Presumably, there were male employees at the Scott-Gallaher equipment rental company in Roanoke where Bailey worked. Some of them must have been fathers. But, the judge still maintained that when Mr. Scott fired Ms. Bailey because she had a child, he was not engaging in gender discrimination.
Virgina's laws protecting workers would give a Detroit union official heartburn. Not only is the state actively anti-union, but Virginia is an at-will employment state, which basically means an employees can be fired for almost any - or no - reason.
Fortunately, there are some limitations on employment-at-will. Virginia employers are prevented from violating state and federal laws when terminating employees and they can't fire anyone based on their race, religion or sex.
Armed with a friend-of-the-court brief by Attorney General James Gilmore, Bailey's lawyer argued before the state Supreme Court that firing a woman because she is pregnant or just had a baby is sex discrimination.
The highest court in the state agreed and now Bailey's case againt Scott-Gallaher can proceed.
``This is a major victory for working mothers throughout Virginia,'' Gilmore said after hearing of the court's decision. ``This means women cannot be made to choose between having a family and having a job. No man is ever put to such a choice, and no woman should be.''
This is also a victory for the pro-life movement which ought to be out there battling everything in society that nudges women toward abortion by adding to the burdens of motherhood.
This is one court ruling that feminists and pro-life activists ought to celebrate together. MEMO: Ms. Dougherty is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot.