[ by Melanie Gretchen ]

A former Barclays accountant is suing the British bank for allegedly firing her after it learned that her newborn was diagnosed with cancer.  Rachel Walsh, 32, is seeking $10 million in damages and compensation for what she describes as breach of contract and gender discrimination.

Findings and Allegations. Ms. Walsh graduated from St. John's University in 2004 with an MBA in tax and accounting, before she joined the accounting and consulting firm Ernst & Young.  After leaving Merrill Lynch, Barclays in 2010 recruited her as assistant VP of global finance to work in Manhattan.  Months after her hiring, she became pregnant.  Following her 5/5/11 birth, she took her paid, 12-week maternity leave.

The problem began when she told the firm that her son had been diagnosed with bilateral retinoblastoma, or cancer in the retinas of both eyes.  After her maternity leave, she requested and was granted additional, unpaid time to take care of her son.  More than a year had passed when in August of 2012, she told Barclays that she was ready to return to work, when her son had completed a course of chemotherapy

Where her story differs from the firm's is as follows.

The plaintiff alleges:

• She was told she would have a job to return to when she was able to work again, at which point she could work from home or on a flexible schedule; Barclays signed a contract making the promises official.
• Nevertheless, at the end of her leave, one of her superiors told her that she was against Ms. Walsh returning  to the same position that she had held before her leave because the supervisor said she could not handle the 15-hour days and take time off to take care of her son, despite the fact that her fiancé had already made arraignments at work to be there for their baby.
• When she offered to return to work in any capacity, she was told that there are no full-time or part-time positions available for her, and that Walsh was no longer 'fit' for the group where she used to work.

Adding insult to injury, after Ms. Walsh's 9/6/12 departure, she said her former employer tried to block her attempt for unemployment insurance, which she eventually received.

In its defense... Barclays refuted her claims in a statement: "Ms Walsh requested, and Barclays approved, several requests for extended leave--beyond the time periods that would be required by law.  During her extended leave, Barclays provided Ms. Walsh and her family continued health coverage benefits.  Thereafter, Ms. Walsh declined to return to a full-time position that the firm had available for her," the last of which Ms. Walsh's lawyer has denied.

[C-I Note: Did the firm discriminate against her, or is the firm within its legal and/or moral right?  Before her son was born, she said she received praise, including a raise, bonus, and positive evaluation.  Did she inform the firm that she had made arrangements for her child's care?  Is she obligated to do so to avoid potential conflict?]

For further details, go to [Daily Mail, 1/15/13].