Employee Survival Guide®
The Employee Survival Guide® is an employment law podcast only for employees about everything related to work and your career. We will share with you all the employment law information your employer and Human Resources does not want you to know about working and guide you through various work and employment law issues. This is an employee podcast.
The Employee Survival Guide® podcast is hosted by seasoned Employment Law Attorney Mark Carey, who has only practiced in the area of Employment Law for the past 29 years. Mark has seen just about every type of employment law and work dispute there is and has filed several hundred work related lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, including class action suits. He has a no frills and blunt approach to employment law and work issues faced by millions of workers nationwide. Mark endeavors to provide both sides to each and every issue discussed on the podcast so you can make an informed decision. Again, this is a podcast only for employees.
Subscribe to our employee podcast show in your favorite podcast app including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
You can also subscribe to our feed via RSS or XML.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide ® please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this employee podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, or email at info@capclaw.com.
Also go to our website EmployeeSurvival.com for more helpful information about work and working.
Employee Survival Guide®
Jessica Mullen v. New Balance Athletics: Menopause, Disability and Accommodation
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
What happens when your employer becomes your adversary, and your fight for menopause employee rights turns into a legal battle? In this gripping episode of Employee Survival Guide®, Mark Carey dives deep into the compelling case of Jessica Mullen, who took on New Balance Athletics in a lawsuit centered around disability discrimination and retaliation. Mullen's journey began after a life-altering hysterectomy at just 35, leading to profound hormonal changes and emotional challenges that would test her resilience and the limits of workplace accommodation.
As a stitcher trainee, Mullen faced an emotional outburst during training that escalated into a pivotal moment in her case. This episode unpacks the complexities of defining disability in the workplace, particularly the nuances surrounding perceived disabilities and the legal obligations employers have under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We delve into the ambiguity of Mullen's menopause and the critical responsibilities of employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.
Join us as we explore the intricate legal arguments presented during the case, shedding light on the often murky waters of employment law issues and menopause. Just days before the trial was set to begin, Mullen and New Balance reached a confidential settlement, leaving many unanswered questions about the implications of this case on disability rights in the workplace. What does it mean for employee empowerment? How can we navigate the hostile work environments that often arise from discrimination and retaliation claims?
This episode is not just a recounting of a legal battle; it's a call to action for all employees to understand their rights and advocate for themselves in the face of discrimination, whether it be disability discrimination, gender discrimination, or retaliation for asserting those rights. Listen in for insider tips on negotiating severance packages, understanding employment contracts, and the importance of workplace culture in fostering an environment where employees can thrive.
With discussions ranging from severance negotiation to navigating workplace policies, this episode of Employee Survival Guide® is packed with valuable insights for anyone looking to survive and thrive in their career. Don't miss this opportunity to learn about the critical issues surrounding employee rights, workplace discrimination, and the legal landscape that affects us all. Tune in now and equip yourself with the knowledge to navigate your own employment journey!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, X and LinkedIn.
We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will help other employees find the Employee Survival Guide.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Hey everyone, Welcome back. You guys hit on this really interesting case about a woman named Jessica Mullen and her employment with New Balance Athletics.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1And we're going deep into court documents, legal opinions.
Speaker 2The whole.
Speaker 1nine yards, yeah, the whole shebang to try to figure out what exactly happened. And it's interesting because it's not your typical discrimination lawsuit.
Speaker 2It's not.
Speaker 1This one revolves around a hysterectomy.
Speaker 2Yeah, that's what makes this case so fascinating. It really kind of raises these questions about. You know how do we define disability in the workplace these days?
Speaker 1Exactly so, to kind of set the stage for everybody.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1Jessica Mullen had a hysterectomy back in April of 2015. Okay, and this came after years of dealing with these really painful ovarian cysts. She had previously had a tubal ligation.
Speaker 2Okay.
Speaker 1Which her doctor had told her at the time could potentially be reversed.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1But this hysterectomy was permanent.
Speaker 2It was.
Speaker 1And her doctor explained that it would essentially send her body into early menopause. So hot flashes, emotional changes, the whole deal. Yeah, the whole nine yards.
Speaker 2And this is crucial right.
Speaker 1Yeah.
Speaker 2Because she was only 35 at the time.
Speaker 1Oh wow.
Speaker 2So we're not talking about sort of a natural transition into menopause.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2This is a sudden.
Speaker 1Like a medically induced.
Speaker 2Yeah, and it brought on this whole cascade of hormonal shifts Right that have both physical and emotional effects.
Speaker 1Yeah, and you know you think about all the things that go along with that, exactly. So fast forward a couple of months. Okay, she gets cleared to work and lands this job at New Balance as a stitcher trainee.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1Seems like she's, you know, getting back on track.
Speaker 2Yeah, you would think so right.
Speaker 1Yeah.
Speaker 2But about three weeks in there's this emotional outburst during training, okay, and the details of this outburst are kind of where things get really murky, yeah, and it really becomes a core issue in the lawsuit.
Speaker 1So it's a classic, he said. She said situation Right. Mullen claims that her trainer, julie Prentice, was being impatient and snapped at her and this triggered a hot flash which then led to her becoming emotional. Prentice, on the other hand, says that Mullen got frustrated, threw a shoe and started crying.
Speaker 2Okay, so you've got these two completely different versions of events.
Speaker 1Yes, and so this lack of clarity, I think, is really important.
Speaker 2It is.
Speaker 1Because without a clear picture of what actually happened, it's tough to say whether either party was in the wrong.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1And this ambiguity feeds directly into one of the major legal arguments in the case.
Speaker 2It does.
Speaker 1This concept of being regarded as disabled.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1So can you kind of break that down for me and I think for a lot of our listeners too? Sure, how does a confusing incident connect to a legal argument about disability?
Speaker 2So the law recognizes that even if you don't meet like the strict definition of having a disability, ok, you're still protected if your employer treats you as if you have a disability. So it's all about perception.
Speaker 1So in this case, even if Mullen's hysterectomy and the resulting hormonal changes were considered disability in the eyes of the law, if New Balance perceived her emotional outburst as being caused by a disability, whether it was mental or physical, Exactly. They could still be liable for discrimination 100 percent. It's not just the medical condition itself, it's about how they reacted to it.
Speaker 2You got it.
Speaker 1And that's where I guess the he said, she said nature of the incident becomes so important. It really does, because it raises those questions about you know, didn't you balance, make assumptions about Mullen's abilities because of her hysterectomy?
Speaker 2based on their perception of the event.
Speaker 1Exactly Right. Ok, so this incident with the training and the shoe and the outburst and all that leads to a meeting with HR.
Speaker 2Okay.
Speaker 1And things, I think, get even more complicated here. Yeah, we've got two HR managers involved Right Francis Fisher from the Norridge Walk plant and Rachel Mary from the Skoegan plant, which is where Mullen was actually supposed to be working.
Speaker 2Okay.
Speaker 1So what happened in this meeting?
Speaker 2So there are a few things that both sides actually agree on. Mullen was very upfront about her recent hysterectomy.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2The hot flashes she was experiencing and the fact that she was having trouble managing her emotions.
Speaker 1I imagine that was a pretty personal thing to have to disclose to your employer.
Speaker 2Yeah, especially so early on in her job. Yeah, to have to disclose to your employer? Yeah, especially so early on in her job. Yeah, so, mary, the HR manager expresses concern about these emotional responses and even suggests that maybe it's not the right time for Mullen to be at New Balance.
Speaker 1Wow, that's pretty direct.
Speaker 2Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1So then what happens?
Speaker 2Well, and what's interesting is that Mullen even asks directly am I being let go, oh?
Speaker 1wow.
Speaker 2And Mary's response is that she encourages a joint decision.
Speaker 1Okay. So now it's really unclear. I'm really feeling this cloud of ambiguity. Right Was Mullen being pressured to resign.
Speaker 2Right, was she being fired?
Speaker 1Did she feel like she had any other options?
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1It's like a choose your own adventure gone wrong.
Speaker 2You're hitting on a key point here.
Speaker 1Yeah.
Speaker 2The whole interaction is just shrouded in uncertainty. It's unclear if Mary was suggesting resignation or if Mullen felt like she had no other choice.
Speaker 1Right. So to cut a long story short, Okay. Mullen ends up filling out a resignation form citing emotional reasons. Oh, but this is where the story really kicks off. Oh boy, because she doesn't is where the story really kicks off.
Speaker 2Oh boy.
Speaker 1Because she doesn't just walk away.
Speaker 2She doesn't.
Speaker 1She files a lawsuit against New Balance.
Speaker 2Right, alleging disability, discrimination and retaliation. And this is where we dive into some really fascinating legal territory. Remember that question about whether Mullen's hysterectomy and hormonal changes were even considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA? That becomes a central legal argument.
Speaker 1Wait, hold on a second. You're throwing out all these legal terms. Can we maybe break it down a little bit for our listeners, who might not be legal experts, of course. What exactly is a disability under the ADA?
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1Why is that even a question here?
Speaker 2So you're right, it's easy to get lost in the jargon. Basically, to be protected under the ADA.
Speaker 1OK.
Speaker 2You need to have a physical or mental impairment.
Speaker 1OK.
Speaker 2That substantially limits a major life activity.
Speaker 1OK, so they're arguing that a hysterectomy qualifies.
Speaker 2That's exactly what Mullen's legal team argued.
Speaker 1OK.
Speaker 2It wasn't just about the procedure itself. It was about the impact of the hysterectomy. They argued that it led to limitations in major life activities like reproduction and endocrine function, which is basically your hormone system. Now this gets even more interesting Because of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008,. It broadened the definition of disability.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2Meaning conditions that might not have been considered disabilities before could now be covered.
Speaker 1So Mullen's legal team is basically saying that, even though a hysterectomy is a medical procedure, it created these limitations that could qualify as a disability under this updated law.
Speaker 2That's right.
Speaker 1That's really interesting. It is like a whole new way of looking at disability.
Speaker 2It is.
Speaker 1Yeah, so they argued that the permanent nature of the hysterectomy yeah. Especially because her previous tubal ligation could have been reversed Right. This created a significant limitation, yeah, on her reproductive choices, exactly, and then being thrust into early menopause at 35.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1That's a major hormonal change, huge. That could definitely be seen as limiting endocrine function, for sure. So it's not just about having a condition, it's about how that condition actually affects your life.
Speaker 2A great way to put it.
Speaker 1Yeah, and it brings us back to that regarded as argument that we were talking about earlier.
Speaker 2Exactly.
Speaker 1So if New Balance saw Mullen's emotional state as a result of a disability, even if her condition didn't technically meet the ADA definition, right yeah, they could still be liable 100%. It's like they're trying to prove discrimination from two different angles. They are that she actually had a disability.
Speaker 2Yep.
Speaker 1And that New Balance treated her as if she did. And then there's this whole other argument that we haven't even really talked about yet this failure to accommodate.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1Did New Balance have a duty to try and make things work for Mullen?
Speaker 2That's a great question.
Speaker 1Considering, you know, everything she was going through.
Speaker 2Absolutely.
Speaker 1Could they have given her a break to kind of compose herself or offered some kind of support?
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1Instead of just pushing for her resignation.
Speaker 2Right, you're making me think about what I would do in that situation.
Speaker 1Yeah, if.
Speaker 2I had just had major surgery Right and I was struggling.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2You would hope your employer would be understanding.
Speaker 1Yeah and try to work with you. And that's the heart of this legal argument. It is the ADA requires employers to make a real effort to accommodate employees with disabilities.
Speaker 2Right Within reason, of course.
Speaker 1So the question becomes did New Balance meet that obligation in this case Right, and did Mullen's resignation, or the way they handle the whole thing, count as retaliation for her disclosing her medical condition?
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1These are big questions. This case is already so layered.
Speaker 2It is.
Speaker 1And we're only just getting started.
Speaker 2We are Buckle up everybody. Yeah, we're about to dive into the court's decision.
Speaker 1Oh OK.
Speaker 2And the surprising twist that came right before the trial was set to begin.
Speaker 1Oh, come on, you can't leave us hanging like that. We'll be right back after a quick break to find out what happened next.
Speaker 2All right, see you in a minute.
Speaker 1Okay, so we're back and we left off with Jessica Mullen filing this lawsuit against New Balance.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1Disability, discrimination, retaliation.
Speaker 2Big stuff.
Speaker 1Yeah, some really serious accusations, yeah, so where do things go from there?
Speaker 2Well, so before a case like this even goes to trial, both sides can ask the judge to basically make a decision without a jury.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2It's called a summary judgment.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2And in this case the judge said nope, not so fast. Wow, this needs to go to trial.
Speaker 1So it wasn't like an open and shut case for either side Not at all, the judge saw enough merit in both Mullen's claims and New Balance's defense.
Speaker 2Right to let a jury decide.
Speaker 1Exactly.
Speaker 2That's pretty telling.
Speaker 1It means there were definitely some issues there.
Speaker 2Yeah, it wasn't a slam dunk for either side, so the judge clearly felt like there were enough questions and conflicting evidence that a jury needed to like weigh everything and Carefully consider all the facts, yeah, so let's go back to those legal arguments for a second.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2We talked about actual disability, regarded as disabled, and failure to accommodate Right. How did those play out in this specific situation?
Speaker 1Okay, so let's start with actual disability. Okay Now, just because Malin had a hysterectomy, that doesn't automatically mean she fits the legal definition of having a disability. Okay, the key question is did the hysterectomy and the hormonal changes that came with it substantially limit a major life activity?
Speaker 2Okay, and they were arguing that it impacted her ability to reproduce.
Speaker 1Yes.
Speaker 2And her endocrine function.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2But she had the tubal ligation before.
Speaker 1So wouldn't New Balance just be like well, you already chose to limit your reproduction.
Speaker 2You're anticipating their argument. Perfectly Okay, new Balance did try that.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2But Mullen's lawyers countered that the tubal ligation could have been reversed.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2Whereas the hysterectomy was permanent. That difference, that permanence, could have been persuasive to a jury.
Speaker 1So, even though she made choices about her reproductive health in the past, so, even though she made, choices about her reproductive health. In the past, the hysterectomy represented this new, irreversible limitation Exactly. And then there's the endocrine system argument.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1Remember, Mullen was only 35 when she had this hysterectomy.
Speaker 2Very young.
Speaker 1Yeah, and it basically put her into early menopause.
Speaker 2Right A very drastic hormonal change.
Speaker 1Yeah, and so I think a jury could see that and be like wow yeah, that definitely impacted her.
Speaker 2Yeah, for sure, compared to someone going through natural menopause Totally yeah. So it sounds like Mullen's legal team was building a strong case, at least on those points.
Speaker 1Yeah, it sounds like it.
Speaker 2And then you add in the regarded as disabled argument.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2Think back to those conversations with H New Balance questioning whether Mullins started the job too soon after surgery, expressing concern about her emotions. Those actions could be interpreted as them perceiving her as having a disability.
Speaker 1Especially that comment from HR about not being able to have someone that emotional working there Right. It really does make you wonder if they were making assumptions about her abilities.
Speaker 2Uh-huh.
Speaker 1Based on her medical condition and that one emotional outburst.
Speaker 2That's at the point.
Speaker 1Yeah.
Speaker 2It raises concerns about whether they were treating her differently because of a perceived disability.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2Whether or not that perception was accurate.
Speaker 1Okay, and I'm curious about the failure to accommodate part Right. Did New Balance have to try and make things work for her?
Speaker 2Right Like could they have offered her a break to calm down or some kind of support, instead of just pushing for her resignation?
Speaker 1Yeah.
Speaker 2That's really the crux of the argument. The ADA requires employers to engage in a good faith effort to accommodate employees with disabilities.
Speaker 1OK.
Speaker 2And it's not about bending over backwards.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2But it is about exploring reasonable options.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2And in this case it could be argued that New Balance went straight for the resignation Right Without really considering alternatives.
Speaker 1And it makes me think about what I would want from an employer.
Speaker 2Yeah, If I was in from an employer.
Speaker 1Yeah, if I was in a similar situation, right, you'd hope for some understanding and some flexibility. You would, and that's what makes this case so relevant, I think, to everyone listening it does. It raises those questions about what reasonable accommodation looks like in practice.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1And how far employers need to go to support their employees.
Speaker 2You're hitting the nail on the head.
Speaker 1So we've got all these legal threads.
Speaker 2We do.
Speaker 1All pretty compelling.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1But what about the practical impact on Jessica Mullen?
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1What happened to her after she left New Balance.
Speaker 2So the court documents show that she was out of work for about nine months before finally finding a new job as a flagger for a company called Northeast Safety.
Speaker 1Wow, nine months, that's a long time to be unemployed. It's a long time. It must have been tough financially and emotionally.
Speaker 2Absolutely.
Speaker 1And was this new job comparable to her position at New Balance?
Speaker 2It wasn't.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2So she went from making $10.60 an hour at New Balance.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2With a clear path to raises to $11.50 an hour, with no benefits at Northeast Safety, oh wow. And even reduced hours during the winter months.
Speaker 1So, even though she was employed again, right Wasn't really a step up, maybe even a step down.
Speaker 2Yeah, it wasn't a great situation.
Speaker 1Did that impact the lawsuit at all?
Speaker 2It definitely comes into play. Okay, there's a legal concept called mitigation of damages.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2Which basically means that if you're suing someone, you have a duty to try and minimize your losses.
Speaker 1Okay, so New Balance was arguing that she didn't do enough to find a new job.
Speaker 2Exactly. They presented evidence about job availability in her area.
Speaker 1Okay.
Speaker 2And pointed out that she and her boyfriend both started working at Northeast Safety on the same day Interesting.
Speaker 1Suggesting. Maybe she wasn't as diligently searching for work as she could have been.
Speaker 2So it becomes this question of what counts as a reasonable effort to find a new job.
Speaker 1Exactly.
Speaker 2Right, because you can't just take any job that comes along.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2Especially if it's a significant downgrade.
Speaker 1Especially if it's a worse job. Yeah, the court has to consider all those factors. Yeah, what kind of jobs were out there? What were her skills and experience? Was she really making a good faith effort? Right, in this case, the judge decided that a jury would have to decide whether Mullen had done enough to meet her duty to mitigate.
Speaker 2I'm seeing a pattern here.
Speaker 1What's that?
Speaker 2With a lot of these really complex issues. Yeah, the judge was basically like let a jury figure it out.
Speaker 1Yeah, you're right, this case is full of gray areas.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1And the judge recognized that it would be up to a jury to weigh all the evidence and decide who was more credible.
Speaker 2It's fascinating how a seemingly straightforward situation.
Speaker 1I know.
Speaker 2This emotional outburst at work.
Speaker 1Can become this tangled web of legal arguments.
Speaker 2It really can.
Speaker 1And you know interpretations.
Speaker 2Yeah, and then there's the human element too.
Speaker 1Right.
Speaker 2The impact on Jessica Mullen's life, her livelihood.
Speaker 1It's a reminder that behind every court case, there are real people.
Speaker 2Real people with real problems.
Speaker 1Grappling with real challenges.
Speaker 2Exactly, and it makes you think about the broader implications, right.
Speaker 1Absolutely yeah. This case isn't just about Jessica Mullen.
Speaker 2It's not.
Speaker 1It raises all these questions about how we define disability in a world where medical advancements and social understanding are constantly evolving. For sure. And it makes you wonder about the limits of employer responsibility.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1When it comes to accommodating employees' medical conditions.
Speaker 2You're hitting the nail on the head.
Speaker 1So we've gone through the incident the legal arguments. The aftermath for Jessica Mullen. What about the big reveal you tease before the break? What happened right before the trial?
Speaker 2Well, remember how we said this case was set to go to trial days before it was supposed to start. Something happened that changed everything.
Speaker 1Don't leave us in suspense.
Speaker 2Mullen and New Balance reached a settlement.
Speaker 1Wait, what A settlement.
Speaker 2A settlement.
Speaker 1So close to trial.
Speaker 2Yep Just a few days before.
Speaker 1Does that mean they admitted wrongdoing?
Speaker 2Not necessarily. Settlements can happen for all sorts of reasons, and the frustrating part, this one was confidential.
Speaker 1Oh, that's such a letdown, I know. So we don't know how much, if anything, new Balance paid her.
Speaker 2We don't.
Speaker 1Or what the terms of the agreement were. Nope, it's like a legal thriller with a missing last chapter.
Speaker 2It is yeah, but even without knowing the specifics, the fact that they settled at all is significant.
Speaker 1What do you think it tells us?
Speaker 2Well, it could be that New Balance saw the potential weaknesses in their case and decided a settlement was less risky than going to trial and potentially losing. Or it could be that they just wanted to avoid the negative publicity that a trial could bring.
Speaker 1Right, who knows? So even without a verdict, there's still lessons to be learned.
Speaker 2Absolutely.
Speaker 1This case makes us think about those big questions surrounding disability, workplace accommodations, for sure, and what justice really looks like.
Speaker 2Yeah, you got it, and that's what makes this deep dive so compelling.
Speaker 1Yeah.
Speaker 2It challenges us to consider what fairness and equity mean in these complex situations where there's no easy answer.
Speaker 1So it feels like we're left with more questions than answers.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1What do you think this case says about disability rights in the workplace as a whole?
Speaker 2I think it just shows how much the conversation is still evolving. Like the ADA has been huge in protecting the rights of people with disabilities, but we're still constantly kind of figuring out how to apply it in these new situations, especially with conditions that aren't always obvious or visible.
Speaker 1Like mental health conditions or chronic illnesses.
Speaker 2Right, or the effects of medical procedures, like we saw in this case, right.
Speaker 1And those can really impact someone's ability to work, but they might not be as readily apparent.
Jessica Mullen's Story with New Balance
Speaker 2Exactly, and employers need to be aware of these challenges and open to providing reasonable accommodations. I think this case really shines a light on that need. It forces us to think beyond those traditional ideas of what a disability is and consider that wide range of conditions that can affect someone's ability to function in a workplace.
Speaker 1And it also highlights that the law itself keeps changing.
Speaker 2It does.
Speaker 1To keep up with. You know our understanding of these complex issues.
Speaker 2For sure.
Speaker 1And something that wouldn't have been considered a disability, you know, decades ago, might be recognized as one today.
Speaker 2That's why it's so important to stay informed and challenge our own assumptions.
Speaker 1Absolutely.
Speaker 2You know, we need to be constantly learning and advocating for a more inclusive and equitable workplace for everyone.
Speaker 1This case has been a wild ride. We had conflicting accounts, complex legal arguments.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1A last minute settlement.
Speaker 2Yeah, it really underscores the importance of knowing your rights and speaking up when you feel like you've been treated unfairly.
Speaker 1Jessica Mullen clearly felt strongly that something wasn't right. She did and she was willing to fight for what she believed in. She was, and even though we don't have all the details, yeah. The fact that New Balance chose to settle.
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1Just days before that trial speaks volumes.
Speaker 2It really does.
Speaker 1They clearly recognized that there was some risk involved in going before a jury.
Speaker 2For sure.
Speaker 1It makes you think about what justice really looks like in these situations.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1Is it about financial compensation?
Speaker 2Right.
Speaker 1Is it about holding employers accountable, or is it something more?
Speaker 2You know, for a lot of people it's about feeling seen and heard Right, Having your experiences validated and knowing that there are systems in place to protect you.
Speaker 1This has been a really eye opening deep dive.
Speaker 2It has.
Speaker 1It's a reminder that the law is a really powerful tool.
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1But it also reflects our values as a society it does. How we define disability and what accommodations we're willing to make says a lot about who we are.
Speaker 2Absolutely, and these conversations are far from over. The law, societal norms, our understanding of disability, they're all constantly evolving.
Speaker 1They are.
Speaker 2It's up to all of us to stay engaged, keep learning and keep pushing for a more inclusive world, and hopefully this deep dive has given you some food for thought, yeah, and some fuel to do just that.
Speaker 1So what do you think? Yeah, what stood out to you most about Jessica Mellon's story? Right, what would you have done if you were in her shoes?
Speaker 2Yeah.
Speaker 1Let us know. We want to hear from you. We'd love to hear your thoughts and keep those thought-provoking cases coming.
Speaker 2Yes, clear.
Speaker 1We'll be back soon with another deep dive into a topic that matters to you.
Speaker 2See you next time.
Speaker 1Until then, keep exploring, keep questioning and keep learning.