EEOC: Local bar fired worker over pregnancy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing the owner of a Broad Ripple bar, charging that it terminated a female employee because of her pregnancy.

The complaint against WBS Broad Ripple Inc., which does business as Wild Beaver Saloon, was filed by the EEOC on behalf of Heather Gibson, a former bartender and server. Her alleged firing due to a pregnancy violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the lawsuit asserts.

The suit also charges that the bar owner failed to post certain provisions of the act at the workplace, another violation of federal law.

EEOC filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court in Indianapolis on March 16. It is asking the court to grant a permanent injunction prohibiting the bar owner from terminating an employee because of her gender and pregnancy, or any other discrimination based on gender.

The complaint also requests that the bar owner institute policies and programs that provide equal employment opportunities for women.

In addition, it wants the bar owner to compensate Gibson for back pay and any future financial losses resulting from the termination, as well as punitive damages for its “malicious and reckless conduct,” to be determined at trial.

“Employees who become pregnant should not lose their jobs because of their condition,” said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney of the EEOC's Indianapolis District Office, in a prepared statement issued Monday. "The Commission will vigorously prosecute employers who engage in pregnancy discrimination or other forms of sex discrimination.”

The Wild Beaver Saloon in Broad Ripple is located at 723 Broad Ripple Ave. Another Wild Beaver is located in downtown Indianapolis at 20 E. Maryland St. The Indianapolis-based chain also has locations in Nashville, Tenn., and Lansing, Mich.

A phone call placed to the bar was not answered and an e-mail sent to company co-owner Richard Payne was not returned Tuesday afternoon.



  • EEOC Information
    Rev. Michael Marine - The information at this web page should give you some options for what to do. - http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/howtofile.cfm
  • More Information is need before Judgement.
    I am mother to a wonderful child and as much as I agree with the law for not firing a pregnant woman. I am also smart enough to realize that anyone can claim that this is the reason for termination. For instance she could have been lets say late to work, not following rules and just because the law is in her favor, no one can fire her? This might not be the case, although all I know is a lot of people are trying to take advantage of lawsuits, mainly because its free to try and it only costs them if they win. The company I work for got sued by a woman for not getting pleasured by her husband, because he hurt his leg and they won. Its ridiculous, I wish we lived in a world where people who deserve to win lawsuits win and no one lies just to make a quick dollar. The saddest part is some of these "fake" lawsuits ruin good company's and in turn make other people loss their jobs.
  • Dan is wrong . . .
    Dan is wrong if he thinks this proves people don't need unions. I work for a federal agency that protects workers rights. Our agencies are totally understaffed to address more than a handful of the violations of labor and employment laws that take place all the time in this country. Don't ever give up your rights to collective bargaining and collective self defense in the workplace. There's no substitute for a union organization based right in the workplace.
  • Think about it
    Shelly -- If you think about it, this is further proof that unions are unnecessary. First, she's protected by Federal law. Second, she's got an EEOC lawyer who is an expert in her type of case. Third, that lawyer is a Federal Government employee, so she doesn't have to pay attorney fees or court costs. Finally, if she proves her case, she's will not only recover back pay and interest, she could win money damages. All without paying a penny in union dues!
    • other reason
      like not wanting to have to pay for health insurance to cover her hospital stay for the delivery of her baby? guess who is going to pay for that now?
    • Proof
      One question...how can she prove it was because of her pregnancy and not something else that could be a legitimate reason for the firing.
      • Firing for Going to Funeral
        Joe & Thomas,

        The law would allow an employer to fire an employee who went to a funeral. The law doesn't allow someone to be fired for a medical condition though like pregnancy
      • Call me crazy, but...
        If you're pregnant, maybe you shouldn't be working in a smoke filled bar.

        It's probably not good for your baby...
      • What to do
        my friend was also fired from a bar after his father passed away and had to attend a funeral, what do you do about this.
      • Discrimination
        My wife was terminated after the company she works for found out she was expecting! The company is called Cornerstone Associates. They provide home health care and such to persons needing services. I feel this is very wrong and wonder what to do.
        • Jobs
          And they wont to get rid of unions. lol
          • discrimination
            She will win.
          • discrimination
            Hope she gets all that she can,
          • Nightclubs
            TRY working at the metro nightclub on mass ave. that wonderful owner fired some there after his mom died, because he had to go and attend her funeral.
          • Discrimination
            I was a school teacher in NY and expecting my first child in 1958, before the law went into effect. Three weeks before the end of the school term, and well before I was due to deliver, my employment was terminated. I hope this woman's case prevails. Let's not go backwards!

          Post a comment to this story

          We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
          You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
          Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
          No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
          We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

          Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

          Sponsored by

          facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

          Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
          Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
          Subscribe to IBJ
          1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

          2. Shouldn't this be a museum

          3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

          4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

          5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.