Dearica Hamby files Federal Lawsuit against Aces, WNBA

[Snotbubbles]

If people are actually interested in a breakdown of the case:

https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/pregnancy-lawsuit-against-wnba-aces-presents-host-of-legal-issues


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Good link. My hang up in a nutshell is here:

Has Ms. Hamby been harmed?

Generally speaking, a party can pursue a lawsuit only if they have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct. It is not immediately apparent that Ms. Hamby has in fact been harmed. She continues to play in the WNBA pursuant to the contract extension she signed in 2022 and has seemingly not lost the benefits of that contract.

She alleges that she was harmed by lost endorsement opportunities, because California imposes higher taxes than Nevada, and because she could not participate on the Aces’ 2023 championship team. More specifically, Ms. Hamby alleges that she had better marketing potential in Las Vegas contrasted with Los Angeles because the latter is a “far more saturated endorsement market.

Nevertheless, Ms. Hamby does not identify any prospective endorsement deals that she lost as a result of being traded.

To me, this is some disingenuous BS.

Like, can we really believe that any athlete came into the WNBA or any other league thinking they had a right to financial compensation whenever they got traded? Let alone someone who was on her 5 contract/extension in her WNBA career?

None of it means Hammon & co aren't liable for some other action, but throwing stuff in like this seems actually dangerous to sport.

In major sports leagues, teams have a right to trade your contract, and you have a right to still get paid based on that contract. That's how it's always been, and it will cause a lot of problems if this stops being allowed by the law.

I'd say there is almost no doubt, considering the league punished the Aces, that Hamby signed her current contract after the Aces verbally promised and partially provided "extra" benefits" to entice Hamby to sign the contract, then withheld those "extra benefits" AFTER the team found out that she was pregnant.

Then you have issues of discrimination in the workplace due to her pregnancy under Title VII.

She definitely has a tough road to prove loss of income from endorsements.

This case scream settlement, since Hamby has damages issues and the WNBA doesn't want any internal team emails or phone evidence to get into the public domain.

[Doctor MJ]

If people are actually interested in a breakdown of the case:

https://www.constangy.com/employment-labor-insider/pregnancy-lawsuit-against-wnba-aces-presents-host-of-legal-issues


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Good link. My hang up in a nutshell is here:

Has Ms. Hamby been harmed?

Generally speaking, a party can pursue a lawsuit only if they have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct. It is not immediately apparent that Ms. Hamby has in fact been harmed. She continues to play in the WNBA pursuant to the contract extension she signed in 2022 and has seemingly not lost the benefits of that contract.

She alleges that she was harmed by lost endorsement opportunities, because California imposes higher taxes than Nevada, and because she could not participate on the Aces’ 2023 championship team. More specifically, Ms. Hamby alleges that she had better marketing potential in Las Vegas contrasted with Los Angeles because the latter is a “far more saturated endorsement market.

Nevertheless, Ms. Hamby does not identify any prospective endorsement deals that she lost as a result of being traded.

To me, this is some disingenuous BS.

Like, can we really believe that any athlete came into the WNBA or any other league thinking they had a right to financial compensation whenever they got traded? Let alone someone who was on her 5 contract/extension in her WNBA career?

None of it means Hammon & co aren't liable for some other action, but throwing stuff in like this seems actually dangerous to sport.

In major sports leagues, teams have a right to trade your contract, and you have a right to still get paid based on that contract. That's how it's always been, and it will cause a lot of problems if this stops being allowed by the law.

I'd say there is almost no doubt, considering the league punished the Aces, that Hamby signed her current contract after the Aces verbally promised and partially provided "extra" benefits" to entice Hamby to sign the contract, then withheld those "extra benefits" AFTER the team found out that she was pregnant.

Then you have issues of discrimination in the workplace due to her pregnancy under Title VII.

She definitely has a tough road to prove loss of income from endorsements.

This case scream settlement, since Hamby has damages issues and the WNBA doesn't want any internal team emails or phone evidence to get into the public domain.

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

[MrDollarBills]

Good link. My hang up in a nutshell is here:



To me, this is some disingenuous BS.

Like, can we really believe that any athlete came into the WNBA or any other league thinking they had a right to financial compensation whenever they got traded? Let alone someone who was on her 5 contract/extension in her WNBA career?

None of it means Hammon & co aren't liable for some other action, but throwing stuff in like this seems actually dangerous to sport.

In major sports leagues, teams have a right to trade your contract, and you have a right to still get paid based on that contract. That's how it's always been, and it will cause a lot of problems if this stops being allowed by the law.

I'd say there is almost no doubt, considering the league punished the Aces, that Hamby signed her current contract after the Aces verbally promised and partially provided "extra" benefits" to entice Hamby to sign the contract, then withheld those "extra benefits" AFTER the team found out that she was pregnant.

Then you have issues of discrimination in the workplace due to her pregnancy under Title VII.

She definitely has a tough road to prove loss of income from endorsements.

This case scream settlement, since Hamby has damages issues and the WNBA doesn't want any internal team emails or phone evidence to get into the public domain.

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

I think that there has to be the onus on trading a player who is with child here. Players have been traded for numerous reasons: bad fit, cap reasons, to bolster the current roster, etc. Never have I seen a player be traded because of becoming a parent...there needs to be legal protections on the book for that.

To your point though...I think this is opening up the proverbial can of worms.

[sikma42]

Good link. My hang up in a nutshell is here:



To me, this is some disingenuous BS.

Like, can we really believe that any athlete came into the WNBA or any other league thinking they had a right to financial compensation whenever they got traded? Let alone someone who was on her 5 contract/extension in her WNBA career?

None of it means Hammon & co aren't liable for some other action, but throwing stuff in like this seems actually dangerous to sport.

In major sports leagues, teams have a right to trade your contract, and you have a right to still get paid based on that contract. That's how it's always been, and it will cause a lot of problems if this stops being allowed by the law.

I'd say there is almost no doubt, considering the league punished the Aces, that Hamby signed her current contract after the Aces verbally promised and partially provided "extra" benefits" to entice Hamby to sign the contract, then withheld those "extra benefits" AFTER the team found out that she was pregnant.

Then you have issues of discrimination in the workplace due to her pregnancy under Title VII.

She definitely has a tough road to prove loss of income from endorsements.

This case scream settlement, since Hamby has damages issues and the WNBA doesn't want any internal team emails or phone evidence to get into the public domain.

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

[theforumblue]

I'd say there is almost no doubt, considering the league punished the Aces, that Hamby signed her current contract after the Aces verbally promised and partially provided "extra" benefits" to entice Hamby to sign the contract, then withheld those "extra benefits" AFTER the team found out that she was pregnant.

Then you have issues of discrimination in the workplace due to her pregnancy under Title VII.

She definitely has a tough road to prove loss of income from endorsements.

This case scream settlement, since Hamby has damages issues and the WNBA doesn't want any internal team emails or phone evidence to get into the public domain.

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

i've done zero research on this so i may be talking nonsense here, but here's a question. if wnba doesn't already have a hard rule regarding pregnancies, i have to wonder if that is the way they prefer it. sports is very different than other type of jobs. some kind of medical exemption for the team would have to be set in place for the season and possibly longer, something in cba regarding player contract duration, etc. maybe they prefer it to be handled 'case by case', per team per player etc?

[Doctor MJ]

I'd say there is almost no doubt, considering the league punished the Aces, that Hamby signed her current contract after the Aces verbally promised and partially provided "extra" benefits" to entice Hamby to sign the contract, then withheld those "extra benefits" AFTER the team found out that she was pregnant.

Then you have issues of discrimination in the workplace due to her pregnancy under Title VII.

She definitely has a tough road to prove loss of income from endorsements.

This case scream settlement, since Hamby has damages issues and the WNBA doesn't want any internal team emails or phone evidence to get into the public domain.

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

I think that there has to be the onus on trading a player who is with child here. Players have been traded for numerous reasons: bad fit, cap reasons, to bolster the current roster, etc. Never have I seen a player be traded because of becoming a parent...there needs to be legal protections on the book for that.

To your point though...I think this is opening up the proverbial can of worms.

I think this is something the WNBA should have settled in 1997 - which frankly they might have. If they did, then it was with the assurance that trades don't count as discrimination. If not, then the rule needs to be made explicitly clear. The idea that a franchise thinks they can trade whoever they want other than specific players in specific conditions only to have the rug pulled out from under them by the government is completely unacceptable on the part of the WNBA.

[Doctor MJ]

I'd say there is almost no doubt, considering the league punished the Aces, that Hamby signed her current contract after the Aces verbally promised and partially provided "extra" benefits" to entice Hamby to sign the contract, then withheld those "extra benefits" AFTER the team found out that she was pregnant.

Then you have issues of discrimination in the workplace due to her pregnancy under Title VII.

She definitely has a tough road to prove loss of income from endorsements.

This case scream settlement, since Hamby has damages issues and the WNBA doesn't want any internal team emails or phone evidence to get into the public domain.

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

If it doesn't have to be significant harm than way can't NBA players sue for hurt feelings? Maybe they can and we're all about to find out, eh?

Re: settle to prevent reputational damage. They may well settle, but if they settle for reasons related to pregnancy they'd be fools not to change WNBA rules because otherwise they're just going to have to keep settling whenever there's anything like this again.

[Doctor MJ]

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

i've done zero research on this so i may be talking nonsense here, but here's a question. if wnba doesn't already have a hard rule regarding pregnancies, i have to wonder if that is the way they prefer it. sports is very different than other type of jobs. some kind of medical exemption for the team would have to be set in place for the season and possibly longer, something in cba regarding player contract duration, etc. maybe they prefer it to be handled 'case by case', per team per player etc?

I would say if the WNBA hasn't made sure they're covered by the law previously it was because they just assumed it was that the same rules could apply pertaining to WNBA trades as were set forth by the NBA.

In terms of preference, well, any pro sports team would always prefer to trade players who are/get worse and acquire players who are/get better. The idea right now that has to be freaking out WNBA teams is that at any time their players can make themselves legally untradeable, and yet still required to be paid no matter what state their ability to perform is, by getting pregnant.

Hamby of course actually timed her pregnancy pretty dang appropriately given the WNBA schedule - far from the worst case scenario of a player literally giving birth during the season - but logically, if it was inappropriate to trade Hamby for reasons of pregnancy, it should also be inappropriate to trade a player that would literally be out all season and thus taking a full salary while contributing nothing.

Re: medical exemption. Agree that I think it's pretty clear cut that teams who have a pregnant player should not have that player count against the cap. The problem of course is that if the WNBA teams have done their jobs well, all that will be left for the teams to acquire are players not good enough to warrant a minimum contract in the WNBA, so allowing the WNBA team to replace their pregnant player with a replacement level one basically gives them nothing.

[sikma42]

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

If it doesn't have to be significant harm than way can't NBA players sue for hurt feelings? Maybe they can and we're all about to find out, eh?

Re: settle to prevent reputational damage. They may well settle, but if they settle for reasons related to pregnancy they'd be fools not to change WNBA rules because otherwise they're just going to have to keep settling whenever there's anything like this again.

You can’t sue for just being traded. You can sue if you were traded because you were pregnant or based on race, religion etc.

They will update the CBA to give more rights to pregnant women (it’s the right thing to do and they will be under pressure to do so). But that doesn’t change the applicable laws. You can’t contract out of your requirement not to discriminate.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Doctor MJ]

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

If it doesn't have to be significant harm than way can't NBA players sue for hurt feelings? Maybe they can and we're all about to find out, eh?

Re: settle to prevent reputational damage. They may well settle, but if they settle for reasons related to pregnancy they'd be fools not to change WNBA rules because otherwise they're just going to have to keep settling whenever there's anything like this again.

You can’t sue for just being traded. You can sue if you were traded because you were pregnant or based on race, religion etc.

They will update the CBA to give more rights to pregnant women (it’s the right thing to do and they will be under pressure to do so). But that doesn’t change the applicable laws. You can’t contract out of your requirement not to discriminate.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Re: can't sue just for being traded, can sue because pregnant. With respect, I don't think we know that. I think you, me, Hamby, the Aces, and the WNBA are about to find out.

You've said you believe that pregnancy will qualify because it doesn't take much "harm" to qualify, and maybe you're right, but if harm is that actual issue, there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply to the NBA - because effective harm happens there to someone in almost all trades.

Re: give more right to pregnant women - right thing to do. I'm honestly not sure it is. I want pregnant women to have all sorts of rights, but why does a player automatically get a no-trade clause because she decides to become pregnant when she obviously never had it before? How can it be "discrimination" to simply treat the pregnant player like the tradeable asset every other woman in the WNBA is?

[G R E Y]

If i were her lawyer, I would advise her to refrain from talking about an ongoing federal lawsuit in public, one where she has been named directly in it multiple times, but that's just me.

Oh, I imagine that conversation has occurred.

I imagine Hamby's lawyers high fiving after listening to this.

I understand the almost unbearable and irresistible urge to defend oneself, perhaps get ahead of the narrative or catch up with a counter narrative, but never ever testifying via media is there for a reason.

'Over the top care, actually, over the top care' from someone already suspended two games and whose team was fined a pick(s?) is just the sort of dish served on a platter prosecution can't wait to feast on.

[MrDollarBills]

If it doesn't have to be significant harm than way can't NBA players sue for hurt feelings? Maybe they can and we're all about to find out, eh?

Re: settle to prevent reputational damage. They may well settle, but if they settle for reasons related to pregnancy they'd be fools not to change WNBA rules because otherwise they're just going to have to keep settling whenever there's anything like this again.

You can’t sue for just being traded. You can sue if you were traded because you were pregnant or based on race, religion etc.

They will update the CBA to give more rights to pregnant women (it’s the right thing to do and they will be under pressure to do so). But that doesn’t change the applicable laws. You can’t contract out of your requirement not to discriminate.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Re: can't sue just for being traded, can sue because pregnant. With respect, I don't think we know that. I think you, me, Hamby, the Aces, and the WNBA are about to find out.

You've said you believe that pregnancy will qualify because it doesn't take much "harm" to qualify, and maybe you're right, but if harm is that actual issue, there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply to the NBA - because effective harm happens there to someone in almost all trades.

Re: give more right to pregnant women - right thing to do. I'm honestly not sure it is. I want pregnant women to have all sorts of rights, but why does a player automatically get a no-trade clause because she decides to become pregnant when she obviously never had it before? How can it be "discrimination" to simply treat the pregnant player like the tradeable asset every other woman in the WNBA is?

This is where it gets dicey.

Should someone be traded for becoming pregnant as punishment for undergoing a natural life process? Absolutely not.

Should someone who is pregnant be off limits in a trade if a team wants them or if the deal is strictly basketball? I don't think so either.

If I'm the LA Sparks and I'm getting offered Dearica Hamby, a flat out stud 18 and 10 player, I wouldn't care if she's pregnant, I would jump over a table to make that deal ten times out of ten.

That doesn't mean that she should be traded to my team for retaliation for getting pregnant.

How do you legislate this?

[MrDollarBills]

The trade part is where I have no clue how to handle.

Now if a player under contract becomes pregnant and has to miss time, there should be an exemption list with specific rules on how that is handled. That being said, I don't think it's right for teams to ostracize and deny benefits to their employee either. Saying that a pregnant player cannot use the team facilities or be around the club, like what Phoenix did to Skylar Diggins-Smith, I think that's unacceptable and there should be protections in place.

Trades though?

[G R E Y]

The trade part is where I have no clue how to handle.

Now if a player under contract becomes pregnant and has to miss time, there should be an exemption list with specific rules on how that is handled. That being said, I don't think it's right for teams to ostracize and deny benefits to their employee either. Saying that a pregnant player cannot use the team facilities or be around the club, like what Phoenix did to Skylar Diggins-Smith, I think that's unacceptable and there should be protections in place.

Trades though?

Haven't read the suit but from the portions of it I've seen, my guess is prosecution will try to link trade as part of the whole punishment for pregnancy thread whereas Hammon delineated a clear line between trade and pregnancy (and mistreatment, though if she got suspended for dicey treatment then it may call into question the not trading as punishment push).

Just because a player didn't go to HR doesn't mean there wasn't a problem.

Just because a team didn't go around making calls first doesn't mean said team didnt want to get rid of her - again, if it can be linked to other forms of accused mistreatment, can a pattern extending to the trade be established. If the latter can be shown, or jury/judge believes it to be so, then it doesn't matter as much whether Aces made calls to other teams first (although if they did, it would be all the more damning).

If that pattern of mistreatment isn't credibly linked and believed by jury/judge, then well it's a temporal not causal relationship on that point.

But if this goes to trial, it may also be the case that some points will go the Aces way, others to Hamby.

It is not always the case that it's all or nothing in guilt or innocence, right? As in, do all points of grievance have to be found in Hamby's favour in order for the verdict to go her way of can some points of contention not go her way but the overall verdict still can?

[Doctor MJ]

You can’t sue for just being traded. You can sue if you were traded because you were pregnant or based on race, religion etc.

They will update the CBA to give more rights to pregnant women (it’s the right thing to do and they will be under pressure to do so). But that doesn’t change the applicable laws. You can’t contract out of your requirement not to discriminate.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Re: can't sue just for being traded, can sue because pregnant. With respect, I don't think we know that. I think you, me, Hamby, the Aces, and the WNBA are about to find out.

You've said you believe that pregnancy will qualify because it doesn't take much "harm" to qualify, and maybe you're right, but if harm is that actual issue, there's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply to the NBA - because effective harm happens there to someone in almost all trades.

Re: give more right to pregnant women - right thing to do. I'm honestly not sure it is. I want pregnant women to have all sorts of rights, but why does a player automatically get a no-trade clause because she decides to become pregnant when she obviously never had it before? How can it be "discrimination" to simply treat the pregnant player like the tradeable asset every other woman in the WNBA is?

This is where it gets dicey.

Should someone be traded for becoming pregnant as punishment for undergoing a natural life process? Absolutely not.

Should someone who is pregnant be off limits in a trade if a team wants them or if the deal is strictly basketball? I don't think so either.

If I'm the LA Sparks and I'm getting offered Dearica Hamby, a flat out stud 18 and 10 player, I wouldn't care if she's pregnant, I would jump over a table to make that deal ten times out of ten.

That doesn't mean that she should be traded to my team for retaliation for getting pregnant.

How do you legislate this?

Well, I think the practical thing on the WNBA level is just setting clear policies that fit with the laws of the land, whatever those are.

I have to say though: I don't really see trading a player to punish them as a realistic thing that's likely to happen in modern sports leagues because it's surely an instant way to get fired if your boss here's you say "Yeah I'm sabotaging the franchise, but I don't care because it's more important to me to X".

Note that this isn't saying that a coach/GM can't get to the point where their they are so emotionally driven that they are mistaken in thinking a trade is what's best for the team when it isn't - and honestly I think that may well be what we're seeing now with the Aces now that they have neither Hamby nor Parker - but that's not the same thing as purposefully sacrificing the franchise for vengeance.

Of course I'm not saying that this means she wasn't traded because she was pregnant, only that they legit thought that trading the pregnant woman was what was best for the basketball team. Completely understandable wanting a rule that explicitly removes this as an option, but it's not the same thing as addressing purposeful punishment.

[theforumblue]

Saying that a pregnant player cannot use the team facilities or be around the club, like what Phoenix did to Skylar Diggins-Smith
Trades though?

when on maternity leave or medical leave you are supposed to have access restricted. it's by law that's actually in place to keep organizations from interrupting the leave.

[Doctor MJ]

Saying that a pregnant player cannot use the team facilities or be around the club, like what Phoenix did to Skylar Diggins-Smith
Trades though?

when on maternity leave or medical leave you are supposed to have access restricted. it's by law that's actually in place to keep organizations from interrupting the leave.

Right, a lot of the things players are alleging are vindictive behavior on the part of their franchises just look to me like typical corporate behavior trying to protect the organization from lawsuits. I don't love that franchises act like this, but I also don't see any reason to interpret the behavior as petty hostility.

[Snotbubbles]

Well as I said: There's no defense for any under-the-table stuff and there never was.

Re: workplace discrimination Title VII. I think the question here is how Title VII applies to trades given that trades have never been considered part of discrimination in the past to my knowledge.

Re: screams settlement. Yes and no.

Yes, because it's a civil suit, that means it's just about money, and a settlement likely will make sense.

No, because Hamby's alleging pregnancy trades amount to workplace discrimination. This is something that really needs to get clarified for precedent. If trading someone now counts as discrimination then the entire landscape of professional sports leagues needs to change.

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

If it doesn't have to be significant harm than way can't NBA players sue for hurt feelings? Maybe they can and we're all about to find out, eh?

Re: settle to prevent reputational damage. They may well settle, but if they settle for reasons related to pregnancy they'd be fools not to change WNBA rules because otherwise they're just going to have to keep settling whenever there's anything like this again.

NBA players can't sue for "hurt feelings" because they'd have to prove that they were traded because of discrimination based on sex. Being traded isn't an issue. Being traded because of a pregnancy would be an issue. And Hamby doesn't only allege being traded in her complaint, she alleges that she was being treated differently by her employer prior to being traded.

[sikma42]

"Additionally, Ms. Hamby’s case is helped by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Court held that a female officer sufficiently alleged sex discrimination under Title VII after she was transferred from one job to another, even though her pay and rank were unchanged. Although an employee must show “some harm” to state a claim, the Court said, the harm need not be significant. A change in the officer’s responsibilities, perks, and schedule were sufficient. Under this lessened standard, Ms. Hamby’s trade to a new team – which undoubtedly necessitated various life changes – seems likely to state a claim against the Aces even if her pay was not affected."

This is the analogy I've been trying to raise. It's similar to a work transfer and it's established that you cannot make that decision based upon sex - including pregnancy status. The harm does not have to be significant at all.

I would be surprised if the WNBA doesn't push settle. They would face so much reputational damage here. It would undercut the league and some of their best players.

If it doesn't have to be significant harm than way can't NBA players sue for hurt feelings? Maybe they can and we're all about to find out, eh?

Re: settle to prevent reputational damage. They may well settle, but if they settle for reasons related to pregnancy they'd be fools not to change WNBA rules because otherwise they're just going to have to keep settling whenever there's anything like this again.

NBA players can't sue for "hurt feelings" because they'd have to prove that they were traded because of discrimination based on sex. Being traded isn't an issue. Being traded because of a pregnancy would be an issue. And Hamby doesn't only allege being traded in her complaint, she alleges that she was being treated differently by her employer prior to being traded.

Yea, im honestly very confused as to why this point seems so hard to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[MrDollarBills]

Saying that a pregnant player cannot use the team facilities or be around the club, like what Phoenix did to Skylar Diggins-Smith
Trades though?

when on maternity leave or medical leave you are supposed to have access restricted. it's by law that's actually in place to keep organizations from interrupting the leave.

Ah, okay I didn't realize that. That makes a ton of sense. Thanks for adding clarity