Comments on: Ohio Supreme Court: Company Didn’t Discriminate Against Mom Who Pumped At Work

By: Scott in New Hampshire

Scott in New Hampshire — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:43:19 +0000

I’m not any less angry at Ohio or Isotoner. Isotoner’s actions were cruel, anti-child, and anti-family.
If, as a society, we can’t afford our lactating mothers to take a break 1 hour earlier so their breasts won’t hurt and stop producing milk, exactly how much do we care about our children?
A friend of mine in Asia just took maternity leave of 3 months with 100% pay as is the law in most of Europe and a fair bit of Asia. We are one of the very few countries that requires 0% maternity pay.
American children and mothers are just as deserving of love and respect. Shame on Isotoner.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:06:28 +0000

Just heard the story. I’m disgusted and stunned. I will never buy another isotoner product and encourage other women, even those like me without kids, to stand behind each other on this issue. If companies can allow smoke breaks, surely we can be more flexible in allowing Moms to take BP breaks.

By: Amber

Amber — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:25:01 +0000

Reading the details of the case, Allen informed them initially of her need for breaks, but they said she could pump during her lunch break….5.5 hrs after she pumped before work. She couldn’t wait that long without getting engorged, and when they caught her pumping earlier, she requested that her morning break be extended to allow enough time. After “checking with management”, they fired her. How is it right that a company determines how often and when you can pump, without taking the mother’s needs into consideration.

By: RookieMom Heather

RookieMom Heather — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:25:42 +0000

Thanks for the clarification. I’m a little less angry at Ohio and Isotoner, but not happy enough with either to move back or buy their gloves.
Thanks!