Speaker 1: 0:18

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 2: 0:27

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 0:28

And we're going deep into court documents, legal opinions.

Speaker 2: 0:33

The whole.

Speaker 1: 0:33

nine 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 2: 0:42

It's not.

Speaker 1: 0:43

This one revolves around a hysterectomy.

Speaker 2: 0:44

Yeah, 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 1: 0:51

Exactly so, to kind of set the stage for everybody.

Speaker 2: 0:54

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 0:54

Jessica 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 2: 1:08

Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:09

Which her doctor had told her at the time could potentially be reversed.

Speaker 2: 1:12

Right.

Speaker 1: 1:13

But this hysterectomy was permanent.

Speaker 2: 1:16

It was.

Speaker 1: 1:17

And 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 2: 1:25

And this is crucial right.

Speaker 1: 1:26

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:26

Because she was only 35 at the time.

Speaker 1: 1:28

Oh wow.

Speaker 2: 1:29

So we're not talking about sort of a natural transition into menopause.

Speaker 1: 1:32

Right.

Speaker 2: 1:32

This is a sudden.

Speaker 1: 1:33

Like a medically induced.

Speaker 2: 1:34

Yeah, and it brought on this whole cascade of hormonal shifts Right that have both physical and emotional effects.

Speaker 1: 1:41

Yeah, 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 2: 1:54

Right.

Speaker 1: 1:55

Seems like she's, you know, getting back on track.

Speaker 2: 1:57

Yeah, you would think so right.

Speaker 1: 1:59

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:59

But 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 1: 2:13

So 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 2: 2:33

Okay, so you've got these two completely different versions of events.

Speaker 1: 2:37

Yes, and so this lack of clarity, I think, is really important.

Speaker 2: 2:40

It is.

Speaker 1: 2:41

Because without a clear picture of what actually happened, it's tough to say whether either party was in the wrong.

Speaker 2: 2:47

Right.

Speaker 1: 2:48

And this ambiguity feeds directly into one of the major legal arguments in the case.

Speaker 2: 2:55

It does.

Speaker 1: 2:55

This concept of being regarded as disabled.

Speaker 2: 2:57

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 2:58

So 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 2: 3:08

So 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 1: 3:20

So 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 2: 3:42

You got it.

Speaker 1: 3:43

And 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 2: 3:58

based on their perception of the event.

Speaker 1: 4:00

Exactly Right. Ok, so this incident with the training and the shoe and the outburst and all that leads to a meeting with HR.

Speaker 2: 4:07

Okay.

Speaker 1: 4:08

And 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 2: 4:22

Okay.

Speaker 1: 4:23

So what happened in this meeting?

Speaker 2: 4:24

So there are a few things that both sides actually agree on. Mullen was very upfront about her recent hysterectomy.

Speaker 1: 4:31

Okay.

Speaker 2: 4:31

The hot flashes she was experiencing and the fact that she was having trouble managing her emotions.

Speaker 1: 4:37

I imagine that was a pretty personal thing to have to disclose to your employer.

Speaker 2: 4:40

Yeah, 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 1: 4:52

Wow, that's pretty direct.

Speaker 2: 4:53

Yeah, it is.

Speaker 1: 4:54

So then what happens?

Speaker 2: 4:55

Well, and what's interesting is that Mullen even asks directly am I being let go, oh?

Speaker 1: 5:02

wow.

Speaker 2: 5:02

And Mary's response is that she encourages a joint decision.

Speaker 1: 5:06

Okay. So now it's really unclear. I'm really feeling this cloud of ambiguity. Right Was Mullen being pressured to resign.

Speaker 2: 5:13

Right, was she being fired?

Speaker 1: 5:15

Did she feel like she had any other options?

Speaker 2: 5:17

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 5:18

It's like a choose your own adventure gone wrong.

Speaker 2: 5:20

You're hitting on a key point here.

Speaker 1: 5:21

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 5:22

The 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 1: 5:31

Right. 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 2: 5:44

Oh boy.

Speaker 1: 5:45

Because she doesn't just walk away.

Speaker 2: 5:47

She doesn't.

Speaker 1: 5:48

She files a lawsuit against New Balance.

Speaker 2: 5:52

Right, 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 1: 6:11

Wait, 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 2: 6:21

Right.

Speaker 1: 6:21

Why is that even a question here?

Speaker 2: 6:23

So you're right, it's easy to get lost in the jargon. Basically, to be protected under the ADA.

Speaker 1: 6:28

OK.

Speaker 2: 6:29

You need to have a physical or mental impairment.

Speaker 1: 6:33

OK.

Speaker 2: 6:33

That substantially limits a major life activity.

Speaker 1: 6:36

OK, so they're arguing that a hysterectomy qualifies.

Speaker 2: 6:39

That's exactly what Mullen's legal team argued.

Speaker 1: 6:43

OK.

Speaker 2: 6:44

It 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 1: 7:07

Okay.

Speaker 2: 7:07

Meaning conditions that might not have been considered disabilities before could now be covered.

Speaker 1: 7:13

So 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 2: 7:26

That's right.

Speaker 1: 7:26

That's really interesting. It is like a whole new way of looking at disability.

Speaker 2: 7:30

It is.

Speaker 1: 7:30

Yeah, 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 2: 7:47

Right.

Speaker 1: 7:48

That'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 2: 8:00

A great way to put it.

Speaker 1: 8:01

Yeah, and it brings us back to that regarded as argument that we were talking about earlier.

Speaker 2: 8:06

Exactly.

Speaker 1: 8:06

So 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 2: 8:23

Yep.

Speaker 1: 8:24

And 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 2: 8:33

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 8:34

Did New Balance have a duty to try and make things work for Mullen?

Speaker 2: 8:38

That's a great question.

Speaker 1: 8:39

Considering, you know, everything she was going through.

Speaker 2: 8:42

Absolutely.

Speaker 1: 8:43

Could they have given her a break to kind of compose herself or offered some kind of support?

Speaker 2: 8:48

Right.

Speaker 1: 8:49

Instead of just pushing for her resignation.

Speaker 2: 8:51

Right, you're making me think about what I would do in that situation.

Speaker 1: 8:55

Yeah, if.

Speaker 2: 8:55

I had just had major surgery Right and I was struggling.

Speaker 1: 8:59

Right.

Speaker 2: 9:00

You would hope your employer would be understanding.

Speaker 1: 9:03

Yeah 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 2: 9:13

Right Within reason, of course.

Speaker 1: 9:15

So 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 2: 9:28

Right.

Speaker 1: 9:28

These are big questions. This case is already so layered.

Speaker 2: 9:31

It is.

Speaker 1: 9:32

And we're only just getting started.

Speaker 2: 9:33

We are Buckle up everybody. Yeah, we're about to dive into the court's decision.

Speaker 1: 9:37

Oh OK.

Speaker 2: 9:38

And the surprising twist that came right before the trial was set to begin.

Speaker 1: 9:43

Oh, 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 2: 9:49

All right, see you in a minute.

Speaker 1: 9:49

Okay, so we're back and we left off with Jessica Mullen filing this lawsuit against New Balance.

Speaker 2: 9:56

Right.

Speaker 1: 9:56

Disability, discrimination, retaliation.

Speaker 2: 10:00

Big stuff.

Speaker 1: 10:01

Yeah, some really serious accusations, yeah, so where do things go from there?

Speaker 2: 10:04

Well, 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 1: 10:13

Okay.

Speaker 2: 10:14

It's called a summary judgment.

Speaker 1: 10:16

Okay.

Speaker 2: 10:16

And in this case the judge said nope, not so fast. Wow, this needs to go to trial.

Speaker 1: 10:22

So 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 2: 10:30

Right to let a jury decide.

Speaker 1: 10:33

Exactly.

Speaker 2: 10:34

That's pretty telling.

Speaker 1: 10:35

It means there were definitely some issues there.

Speaker 2: 10:37

Yeah, 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 1: 10:54

Okay.

Speaker 2: 10:54

We talked about actual disability, regarded as disabled, and failure to accommodate Right. How did those play out in this specific situation?

Speaker 1: 11:04

Okay, 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 2: 11:25

Okay, and they were arguing that it impacted her ability to reproduce.

Speaker 1: 11:28

Yes.

Speaker 2: 11:29

And her endocrine function.

Speaker 1: 11:30

Right.

Speaker 2: 11:31

But she had the tubal ligation before.

Speaker 1: 11:33

So wouldn't New Balance just be like well, you already chose to limit your reproduction.

Speaker 2: 11:38

You're anticipating their argument. Perfectly Okay, new Balance did try that.

Speaker 1: 11:42

Okay.

Speaker 2: 11:43

But Mullen's lawyers countered that the tubal ligation could have been reversed.

Speaker 1: 11:48

Okay.

Speaker 2: 11:48

Whereas the hysterectomy was permanent. That difference, that permanence, could have been persuasive to a jury.

Speaker 1: 11:56

So, 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 2: 12:08

Right.

Speaker 1: 12:08

Remember, Mullen was only 35 when she had this hysterectomy.

Speaker 2: 12:12

Very young.

Speaker 1: 12:12

Yeah, and it basically put her into early menopause.

Speaker 2: 12:15

Right A very drastic hormonal change.

Speaker 1: 12:24

Yeah, and so I think a jury could see that and be like wow yeah, that definitely impacted her.

Speaker 2: 12:26

Yeah, 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 1: 12:32

Yeah, it sounds like it.

Speaker 2: 12:33

And then you add in the regarded as disabled argument.

Speaker 1: 12:36

Right.

Speaker 2: 12:37

Think 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 1: 12:51

Especially 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 2: 13:00

Uh-huh.

Speaker 1: 13:00

Based on her medical condition and that one emotional outburst.

Speaker 2: 13:03

That's at the point.

Speaker 1: 13:04

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 13:05

It raises concerns about whether they were treating her differently because of a perceived disability.

Speaker 1: 13:10

Right.

Speaker 2: 13:11

Whether or not that perception was accurate.

Speaker 1: 13:13

Okay, and I'm curious about the failure to accommodate part Right. Did New Balance have to try and make things work for her?

Speaker 2: 13:22

Right Like could they have offered her a break to calm down or some kind of support, instead of just pushing for her resignation?

Speaker 1: 13:29

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 13:29

That's really the crux of the argument. The ADA requires employers to engage in a good faith effort to accommodate employees with disabilities.

Speaker 1: 13:38

OK.

Speaker 2: 13:39

And it's not about bending over backwards.

Speaker 1: 13:41

Right.

Speaker 2: 13:41

But it is about exploring reasonable options.

Speaker 1: 13:44

Right.

Speaker 2: 13:45

And in this case it could be argued that New Balance went straight for the resignation Right Without really considering alternatives.

Speaker 1: 13:52

And it makes me think about what I would want from an employer.

Speaker 2: 13:56

Yeah, If I was in from an employer.

Speaker 1: 13:57

Yeah, 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 2: 14:10

Right.

Speaker 1: 14:11

And how far employers need to go to support their employees.

Speaker 2: 14:15

You're hitting the nail on the head.

Speaker 1: 14:17

So we've got all these legal threads.

Speaker 2: 14:18

We do.

Speaker 1: 14:19

All pretty compelling.

Speaker 2: 14:20

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 14:21

But what about the practical impact on Jessica Mullen?

Speaker 2: 14:23

Right.

Speaker 1: 14:24

What happened to her after she left New Balance.

Speaker 2: 14:26

So 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 1: 14:35

Wow, nine months, that's a long time to be unemployed. It's a long time. It must have been tough financially and emotionally.

Speaker 2: 14:41

Absolutely.

Speaker 1: 14:42

And was this new job comparable to her position at New Balance?

Speaker 2: 14:45

It wasn't.

Speaker 1: 14:45

Okay.

Speaker 2: 14:46

So she went from making $10.60 an hour at New Balance.

Speaker 1: 14:49

Okay.

Speaker 2: 14:50

With 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 1: 14:59

So, even though she was employed again, right Wasn't really a step up, maybe even a step down.

Speaker 2: 15:04

Yeah, it wasn't a great situation.

Speaker 1: 15:06

Did that impact the lawsuit at all?

Speaker 2: 15:08

It definitely comes into play. Okay, there's a legal concept called mitigation of damages.

Speaker 1: 15:13

Okay.

Speaker 2: 15:13

Which basically means that if you're suing someone, you have a duty to try and minimize your losses.

Speaker 1: 15:20

Okay, so New Balance was arguing that she didn't do enough to find a new job.

Speaker 2: 15:24

Exactly. They presented evidence about job availability in her area.

Speaker 1: 15:28

Okay.

Speaker 2: 15:29

And pointed out that she and her boyfriend both started working at Northeast Safety on the same day Interesting.

Speaker 1: 15:34

Suggesting. Maybe she wasn't as diligently searching for work as she could have been.

Speaker 2: 15:38

So it becomes this question of what counts as a reasonable effort to find a new job.

Speaker 1: 15:43

Exactly.

Speaker 2: 15:44

Right, because you can't just take any job that comes along.

Speaker 1: 15:46

Right.

Speaker 2: 15:46

Especially if it's a significant downgrade.

Speaker 1: 15:49

Especially 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 2: 16:10

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Speaker 1: 16:11

What's that?

Speaker 2: 16:12

With a lot of these really complex issues. Yeah, the judge was basically like let a jury figure it out.

Speaker 1: 16:18

Yeah, you're right, this case is full of gray areas.

Speaker 2: 16:21

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 16:22

And the judge recognized that it would be up to a jury to weigh all the evidence and decide who was more credible.

Speaker 2: 16:28

It's fascinating how a seemingly straightforward situation.

Speaker 1: 16:32

I know.

Speaker 2: 16:33

This emotional outburst at work.

Speaker 1: 16:35

Can become this tangled web of legal arguments.

Speaker 2: 16:37

It really can.

Speaker 1: 16:38

And you know interpretations.

Speaker 2: 16:40

Yeah, and then there's the human element too.

Speaker 1: 16:42

Right.

Speaker 2: 16:42

The impact on Jessica Mullen's life, her livelihood.

Speaker 1: 16:45

It's a reminder that behind every court case, there are real people.

Speaker 2: 16:50

Real people with real problems.

Speaker 1: 16:52

Grappling with real challenges.

Speaker 2: 16:54

Exactly, and it makes you think about the broader implications, right.

Speaker 1: 16:57

Absolutely yeah. This case isn't just about Jessica Mullen.

Speaker 2: 17:01

It's not.

Speaker 1: 17:02

It 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 2: 17:14

Right.

Speaker 1: 17:15

When it comes to accommodating employees' medical conditions.

Speaker 2: 17:19

You're hitting the nail on the head.

Speaker 1: 17:20

So 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 2: 17:31

Well, 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 1: 17:39

Don't leave us in suspense.

Speaker 2: 17:41

Mullen and New Balance reached a settlement.

Speaker 1: 17:45

Wait, what A settlement.

Speaker 2: 17:47

A settlement.

Speaker 1: 17:48

So close to trial.

Speaker 2: 17:49

Yep Just a few days before.

Speaker 1: 17:50

Does that mean they admitted wrongdoing?

Speaker 2: 17:53

Not necessarily. Settlements can happen for all sorts of reasons, and the frustrating part, this one was confidential.

Speaker 1: 18:00

Oh, that's such a letdown, I know. So we don't know how much, if anything, new Balance paid her.

Speaker 2: 18:05

We don't.

Speaker 1: 18:06

Or what the terms of the agreement were. Nope, it's like a legal thriller with a missing last chapter.

Speaker 2: 18:11

It is yeah, but even without knowing the specifics, the fact that they settled at all is significant.

Speaker 1: 18:17

What do you think it tells us?

Speaker 2: 18:18

Well, 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 1: 18:34

Right, who knows? So even without a verdict, there's still lessons to be learned.

Speaker 2: 18:39

Absolutely.

Speaker 1: 18:40

This case makes us think about those big questions surrounding disability, workplace accommodations, for sure, and what justice really looks like.

Speaker 2: 18:48

Yeah, you got it, and that's what makes this deep dive so compelling.

Speaker 1: 18:51

Yeah.

Speaker 2: 18:52

It challenges us to consider what fairness and equity mean in these complex situations where there's no easy answer.

Speaker 1: 18:59

So it feels like we're left with more questions than answers.

Speaker 2: 19:01

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 19:02

What do you think this case says about disability rights in the workplace as a whole?

Speaker 2: 19:08

I 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 1: 19:25

Like mental health conditions or chronic illnesses.

Speaker 2: 19:28

Right, or the effects of medical procedures, like we saw in this case, right.

Speaker 1: 19:31

And those can really impact someone's ability to work, but they might not be as readily apparent.

Speaker 2: 19:37

Exactly, 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 1: 19:58

And it also highlights that the law itself keeps changing.

Speaker 2: 20:01

It does.

Speaker 1: 20:01

To keep up with. You know our understanding of these complex issues.

Speaker 2: 20:05

For sure.

Speaker 1: 20:06

And something that wouldn't have been considered a disability, you know, decades ago, might be recognized as one today.

Speaker 2: 20:12

That's why it's so important to stay informed and challenge our own assumptions.

Speaker 1: 20:17

Absolutely.

Speaker 2: 20:18

You know, we need to be constantly learning and advocating for a more inclusive and equitable workplace for everyone.

Speaker 1: 20:26

This case has been a wild ride. We had conflicting accounts, complex legal arguments.

Speaker 2: 20:32

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 20:32

A last minute settlement.

Speaker 2: 20:33

Yeah, it really underscores the importance of knowing your rights and speaking up when you feel like you've been treated unfairly.

Speaker 1: 20:42

Jessica 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 2: 20:55

Right.

Speaker 1: 20:56

Just days before that trial speaks volumes.

Speaker 2: 20:59

It really does.

Speaker 1: 20:59

They clearly recognized that there was some risk involved in going before a jury.

Speaker 2: 21:05

For sure.

Speaker 1: 21:06

It makes you think about what justice really looks like in these situations.

Speaker 2: 21:09

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 21:09

Is it about financial compensation?

Speaker 2: 21:11

Right.

Speaker 1: 21:12

Is it about holding employers accountable, or is it something more?

Speaker 2: 21:15

You 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 1: 21:24

This has been a really eye opening deep dive.

Speaker 2: 21:26

It has.

Speaker 1: 21:27

It's a reminder that the law is a really powerful tool.

Speaker 2: 21:30

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 21:31

But 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 2: 21:40

Absolutely, and these conversations are far from over. The law, societal norms, our understanding of disability, they're all constantly evolving.

Speaker 1: 21:49

They are.

Speaker 2: 21:50

It'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 1: 22:02

So 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 2: 22:09

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 22:10

Let us know. We want to hear from you. We'd love to hear your thoughts and keep those thought-provoking cases coming.

Speaker 2: 22:15

Yes, clear.

Speaker 1: 22:16

We'll be back soon with another deep dive into a topic that matters to you.

Speaker 2: 22:20

See you next time.

Speaker 1: 22:21

Until then, keep exploring, keep questioning and keep learning.