Home Employment Woman Says Candy Company Fired Her for Orientation, Pregnancy

Woman Says Candy Company Fired Her for Orientation, Pregnancy

 Woman Says Candy Company Fired Her for Orientation, Pregnancy


Discrimination based on an individual’s gender and pregnancy still exists in the modern world despite being illegal in many countries. Many individuals continue to lose their jobs and face unfair treatment based on their gender, orientation, and even pregnancy. In one such case, a woman has alleged that a candy company fired her because of her orientation and pregnancy. According to the woman, she was not given any valid reason for the termination of her employment, and the decision was solely based on her orientation and pregnancy. Let’s take a closer look at this case.


The victim in this case, Maria, was employed at a candy company for over four years. She had an excellent track record at work and had received numerous accolades for her work performance. Maria was expecting her first child and was excited to start a family. She had not made her pregnancy public at work as she was still in the early stages.

The incident happened when Maria went to her supervisor to ask for some time off work to attend a doctor’s appointment. During the conversation, she mentioned that she was pregnant. The supervisor seemed to have a negative reaction to her statement, and the atmosphere in the room changed instantly. Later, Maria received a phone call from HR, terminating her employment contract with the company. She was given no reason for her termination, and the representative only stated that her services were no longer required.

Maria was left shattered and devastated. She felt that she had been treated unfairly and discriminated against. She decided to contact an attorney to understand her rights and take the candy company to court.

Legal Framework:

In many countries, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on their gender, sexual orientation, and pregnancy. For example, in the United States, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Additionally, it is considered a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to discriminate based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

In Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination based on many factors, including sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy. Employees who feel that they have been discriminated against can file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The United Kingdom also has similar laws to protect individuals from discrimination at work. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits employers from discriminating based on a person’s age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation.

Recent Updates:

According to a report published by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the number of discrimination charges filed against employers in 2020 was 67,448. Out of these, 11,084 (16.4%) were related to pregnancy discrimination, and 1,170 (1.7%) were related to sexual orientation discrimination. The report also revealed that women of color are more likely to face discrimination based on their pregnancy or orientation.

In another recent study conducted by the Canadian Women’s Foundation, it was found that almost 25% of working women in Canada have experienced discrimination at work based on their gender or pregnancy. The study also revealed that discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals is also prevalent in the Canadian workforce.


It is a sad reality that despite the laws in place to protect individuals from discrimination, many still suffer from discrimination at work. In Maria’s case, it appears that she was discriminated against based on her orientation and pregnancy. Her employer showed a negative reaction to her statement and, shortly after, terminated her employment contract.

The fact that Maria was not given any valid reason for her termination further strengthens her case against the candy company. Had the candy company terminated her employment for a valid reason, such as poor performance, they would have had a stronger defense against her allegations of discrimination. However, in the absence of a valid reason, it seems that her termination was unjust and discriminatory.


Discrimination based on an individual’s and pregnancy is still prevalent in many workplaces around the world. Despite the many laws in place to protect individuals from such discrimination, many continue to experience it, as evidenced by the recent studies and reports. For individuals like Maria, who face discrimination at work, it is essential to understand their rights and seek legal help to fight against such injustices. It is only by holding employers accountable for their actions that we can hope to eliminate discrimination from the workplace and create a more inclusive and fair work environment for all.

After having a complicated pregnancy and revealing that she was a lesbian among her coworkers, a woman says that Mars Chocolate North America fired her based on her sexual orientation and being a pregnant woman.  The woman, Theresa Kwiecinski, is suing in New Jersey Superior Court after experiencing what she says was discriminatory conduct prohibited by the state’s anti-discrimination laws protecting women and lesbians.

Kwiecinski, who worked in the external manufacturing division of Mars Chocolate as a commercial manager, had good performance reviews with no complaints at the time when a new supervisor was hired.  At around the same time a new supervisor began to supervise Kwiecinski, she began to suffer from pregnancy complications that disabled her and made it impossible for her to continue working in her regular capacity.

As part of her normal job duties, Kwiecinski needed to go on business travel trips from time to time.  However, according to the complaint, she had asked her supervisors to limit the amount of travel she would do during pregnancy, as she was pregnant through fertility treatments and wanted to do everything possible to minimize the risk of losing the pregnancy.

While her initial supervisor had been understanding about these requirements for travel restrictions, Kwiecinski alleges that her new supervisor responded with swift retaliation.  She was given a negative performance review without cause, according to the complaint, and when her pregnancy’s risk escalated, she found herself hospitalized and unable to work.  Another negative performance review followed—according to the review, she had not done enough to “prepare” for her leave when she had to be hospitalized unexpectedly for weeks during her pregnancy.

As a result of these two negative performance reviews, which were negative due to circumstances Kwiecinski claims were unavoidable due to her complicated pregnancy, she was placed on a performance improvement plan.  In her workplace, these tended to be difficult or impossible to satisfy, and were considered a slow but sure way to fire an employee.  At the time when she was terminated in late 2011, her coworkers had recently learned that she had a lesbian partner when she introduced her partner and son to them at a conference in Florida.

This conference, which happened in March, coincided with a swift change in how Kwiecinski’s coworkers treated her, according to the complaint.  Both sexual orientation and pregnancy are protected classes under New Jersey’s employment laws.

Source: judiciary.state.nj.us