Religion

Woman Fired From Hobby Lobby for Being Pregnant

| by Paul Brown

When she was 28 years of age, Felicia Allen of Flowood, Miss. found out she was pregnant. What was originally a joyous feeling turned to anxiety and shock when her employer, Hobby Lobby, terminated her employment due to her pregnancy.

Technically, Ms. Allen was fired for taking unpaid time off to have her child, even after her supervisor assured her that taking the time off would not be a problem.

In a conversation she had with RH Reality Check, Allen stated, “[My supervisor] can’t terminate me because I have to go have my child. I started asking everybody on the job, ‘Can they do this?’ And even the assistant manager who had just got hired [said,] ‘No, that’s not right.’”

Nonetheless, Allen was fired, even though she attempted to come back just three weeks after having her child. Following this incident, Allen decided to sue.

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

After suing Hobby Lobby for discrimination in 2012, Raw Story writes, "her suit was quickly dropped because Allen – like most Hobby Lobby employees – had signed an agreement requiring her to resolve any legal disputes through arbitration, rather than the courts."

But Allen claims she did not realize she had any more options, and she was never able to settle the incident in arbitration.

“How can you be Christian and lie about something to hinder your employee or don’t want them to come back after they’ve had their baby?” Allen said. “Or you’re taking up for your manager knowing that they had done the wrong thing. I feel like that’s not being Christian at all. That’s why I don’t even shop there anymore. I used to shop at that store all the time.”

Incredibly, Hobby Lobby recently won a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court, as a result of which the company was not required to cover contraceptive costs for its employees.

The company argued that it should not be forced to pay for practices that are in confliction with the religious beliefs of its owners. To support this claim, the company sited a religious-freedom law enacted in 1993.

Considering this firm stance against contraception, it is especially glaring that the company would handle a pregnancy in this manner.