Benefits March 24, 2010

Ex-VP Charges Goldman With Putting Her on "Mommy Track"

March 24, 2010 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A major investment bank has been sued for keeping a former vice president on a “mommy track.”
Reported by

According to Reuters, the lawsuit against Goldman Sachs Group Inc was filed in Manhattan federal court by Charlotte Hanna, who said she worked at Goldman Sachs University, an orientation program for new analysts, associates and summer interns.

Hanna alleged that after her 2005 return from her first maternity leave, Goldman demoted her and made her feel unwelcome in what had become a “boys-only” club, according to the report.  She said she was fired in February 2009, a week before she was to return from a second maternity leave.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

“When Ms. Hanna decided to take the ‘off-ramp’ provided by the firm to devote time to her children, there was no ‘on-ramp’ that enabled her to return to full-time employment,” the complaint said, according to the report. “Essentially, the ‘off-ramp’ was a direct path to a mommy-track that ultimately derailed Ms. Hanna’s career.”

According to the complaint, Hanna joined Goldman in 1998 as an associate, was promoted to vice president two years later, and received strong praise for her work.  Reuters reports that the complaint said she took advantage of a Goldman program letting her work part-time upon returning from her first maternity leave in February 2005.  Reuters said that, upon her return, Hanna allegedly hit a “glass ceiling” with respect to pay and advancement, was demoted, and was systematically excluded from operations and social functions.  The complaint said 75% of those “selected for termination” in her group had recently taken maternity leave.

The case is Hanna v. Goldman Sachs & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-02637.

Compliance March 24, 2010

Ohio Supremes Back Limits on Worker Suits

March 24, 2010 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Ohio’s Supreme Court has upheld a law restricting injured workers’ ability to sue their employers in intentional tort cases.
Reported by

Business Insurance reports that the state’s high court ruled Tuesday (in Rose Kaminski vs. Metal & Wire Products Co.) that an “employer intentional tort statute” enacted in 2005 “appears to harmonize” Ohio law with employer intentional tort law and the exclusive remedy of workers comp statutes common in other states.  That overturned a state appellate court finding that the intentional tort law is unconstitutional “in its entirety” in a case brought by a metal press operator, according to BI.

In that case, an 800-pound coil of steel fell in a 2005 accident, injuring Kaminski’s legs and feet, preventing her from returning to work.  She received workers comp benefits but also sued, alleging her employer committed an intentional tort—or that the employer intended to injure the worker or believed an injury was certain to occur.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The Ohio Supreme Court said the state’s General Assembly was “not constitutionally proscribed from legislating in this area”, reinstating the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the employer, which said it ultimately discharged Kaminski “because no other position was available.”

Second Case

In a second case (Carl Stetter et al. vs. R.J. Corman Derailment Services L.L.C. et al.), the Ohio Supreme Court ruled on challenges to the intentional tort law, saying it does not violate several states’ constitutional provisions, including a trial-by-jury provision, the separation-of-powers doctrine or a due-course-of-law provision, according to the report.  The case involved an employee who was injured in 2006 and also received workers comp benefits.

Business Insurance notes that in both cases, the Ohio high court ruled 6-1 with Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissenting.

«