In regard to the first issue, it appears from Complainant's failure to even address whether the Act recognizes parental or familial status discrimination in the employment context that she is conceding Respondent is correct that the Act does not do so. Her responding contention that her Complaint allegations state a claim of marital status discrimination is without good basis. The Complaint does not allege Respondent discriminated against Complainant because of her being married or even because of the identity of her spouse. The Complaint allegations focus on her attempting to have a child, which action is not dependent on a woman's marital status. Consequently, Respondent asserts Complainant cannot prove any set of facts which would entitle her to relief against Respondent, and therefore Complainant's Complaint against Respondent should be dismissed with prejudice.
Complainant is incorrect.
It is entirely appropriate for Respondent to have raised this jurisdictional issue by motion now. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition. Respondent, herein, is not assuming all in this Complaint to be true in regard to this jurisdictional challenge. Complainant also argues that part-time employees should be counted in determining whether an employer has the requisite number of employees in an employment discrimination case. This is true.