A lawsuit recently filed in Ontario’s Superior Court has drawn national attention to the balance between private enterprise, employee expectations, and the legal protections surrounding pregnancy in the workplace.
The Case Against Google
Sarah Lilleyman, a former content editor for Google Canada, claims she was wrongfully dismissed after disclosing her pregnancy to the company. She alleges that within days of informing her supervisors of her pregnancy and plans for an 18-month maternity leave, she was included in a wave of layoffs announced in March 2024.
Lilleyman argues that her dismissal constitutes pregnancy discrimination, a violation of the Ontario Human Rights Code, and is seeking damages including:
- Compensation for lost salary and benefits
- $250,000 in punitive damages
- $150,000 for alleged breaches of the Human Rights Code
Her base salary at Google was $181,980, plus a discretionary bonus and stock options.
Google’s Response
In its statement of defence, Google denied all allegations of discrimination and wrongful dismissal, stating:
- Lilleyman’s position was eliminated as part of a company-wide workforce reduction due to “changing business needs.”
- Her pregnancy played no role in the decision.
- “Pregnancy,” Google argues in the document, “is not a protected ground under the Code.”
Google maintains that her termination was a matter of restructuring, not discrimination.
However, this legal position has been criticized as inaccurate, as the Ontario Human Rights Commission explicitly states that pregnancy is protected under the Code.
Human Rights Perspective
The Ontario Human Rights Commission clarifies that:
“It is contrary to the Code to fire, demote, or lay off someone because they are or may become pregnant. Pregnant employees cannot be denied benefits, opportunities, or job security due to pregnancy.”
Legal experts have echoed this interpretation.
Professor Daniel Del Gobbo of the University of Windsor stated:
“Pregnancy in the workplace is a fundamental issue of gender equality in Canada. Employers cannot consider pregnancy or parental leave plans when deciding whether to terminate employment. The law is clear on these points.”
Broader Implications for Canada
While the case will ultimately be decided in court, it raises a broader issue about entitlement and the Canadian workforce, particularly in a country where 56% of federal public service employees are women and where public sector protections are extensive.
A Culture of Entitlement
Canada’s Unionized public sector workforce enjoy some of the most generous benefits in the world, but this comes at a cost. Governments at the federal and provincial levels are deeply indebted, yet continue to expand entitlements to maintain political support.
This dynamic creates unrealistic expectations in the private sector, which must compete with government standards without having the same financial backing. As a result, businesses sometimes reduce their presence in Canada, wary of overregulation and legislation that makes hiring risky.
Austerity Ahead
When governments pay their bills by printing money, it creates a culture of entitlement that discourages entrepreneurship and investment. Over time, this results in a shrinking private sector, rising public expectations, and mounting fiscal strain—a dangerous cycle that points toward austerity measures in the future.
Christian Reflection
From a Christian perspective, these issues are ultimately about values. When a society moves away from responsibility and towards entitlement, it becomes fragile.
“Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters.”
—Colossians 3:23 (NIV)
Work is a calling, not an entitlement. While justice must be upheld when true discrimination occurs, policies and attitudes that remove accountability harm both individuals and society.
This case, whatever its legal outcome, highlights a deeper issue: a society that looks more to governments and corporations to guarantee outcomes, rather than to personal responsibility and to God for wisdom and provision.
Final Thoughts
While Google’s argument that “pregnancy is not a protected ground” appears to contradict Canadian law, the courts will decide the outcome.
This case also serves as a reminder of the growing divide between Canada’s public sector protections and the pressures faced by private employers. Without balance, Canada risks driving away private investment, weakening its economy, and fostering dependency rather than resilience.
Consider making Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior today. Only in Him can we find justice, balance, and purpose beyond the shifting values of society.
