Articles Posted in Pregnancy discrimination

A new study provides further evidence that employers discriminate against pregnant women when they apply for a job but the study also offers pregnant job seekers helpful tips for getting around the discriminatory biases of employers. The researchers who conducted the study found that pregnant job applicants experienced more hostility (such as rude behavior or prematurely ending of interviews) from employers than non-pregnant job applicants. However, the researchers also found that when pregnant job applicants said things during interviews that addressed some of the more stereotypical concerns about pregnant employees, such as their level of commitment to the job, they were able to reduce the frequency of employers’ discriminatory behavior.

“This study takes the research of discrimination against pregnant women a step further,” said lead author Whitney Botsford Morgan, assistant professor of management at the University of Houston. “We know that this type of discrimination exists. This research helps us understand what can be done to reduce it. Statements that refute stereotypes about being inflexible and lacking commitment are particularly effective.”

It is against state and federal law for employers to discriminate against an employee or job applicant because she is pregnant. Despite these laws, as this study shows, discrimination against pregnant women is common. If you believe an employer has discriminated against you because you are pregnant, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to learn more about your rights.

Yesterday, New York City’s City Council passed a law that would prohibit employers from discriminating against pregnant employees just because they need a reasonable accommodation to continue working during their pregnancy. This is an important advance for pregnant employees because, apart from the accommodations that they routinely provide to non-pregnant employees, employers do not have to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees under New York state law or federal law. Under New York City’s new law, an employer would, for example, have to relieve a pregnant employee of certain tasks that required heavy lifting unless doing so would pose an undue hardship for the employer.

While it may seem contrary to common sense, both federal and Maine law do not require employers to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations. As a result, many pregnant women jeopardize their health because their employers won’t provide them with reasonable accommodations. For instance, in New York City, a pregnant retail worker reportedly passed out and needed emergency medical care because her employer refused to permit her to carry a water bottle with her during the work day.

Earlier this year, a bill was introduced in the Maine legislature that was similar to the law passed in New York City but the bill was not passed. There is also a similar bill in Congress called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that has not yet gained traction either.

Last week, Governor LePage vetoed a bill that we previously reported on which would have protected employees who need to breastfeed or express breast milk at work from discrimination. This week, the Maine House failed to override Governor LePage’s veto. The editorial board of the Bangor Daily News expressed its disagreement with Governor LePage on this issue. The Bangor Daily News editorial made the point that the bill which Governor LePage vetoed would have improved the legal process for protecting employees who breastfeed because it would’ve permitted the Maine Human Rights Commission to resolve complaints without the need for a lawsuit.

“If we truly value full equality for working mothers in the workplace, we need effective measures to protect their rights,” said Rep. Anne Graham, D-North Yarmouth, the bill’s sponsor and a pediatric nurse practitioner. “This bill is also needed for the children of working mothers, who also deserve the long-term health benefits that the nutritional and infection-fighting properties of breast milk provide.”

In response to Governor LePage’s rationale for his veto, that Maine law already protects breastfeeding mothers from discrimination, Graham said that the only recourse for a mother whose employer refuses to let her express breast milk at work “is to bring a complaint to the state Department of Labor, if she is still employed, or, if she has lost her job, to ask the local district attorney to bring a suit. In either case, the most severe sanction against the employer is a $500 fine that goes to the state, not the mother. Nothing in current law requires an employer to rehire a worker who was fired for nursing.”

Yesterday, a bill that would provide further protections for mothers who need to nurse or express breast milk in the workplace passed the Maine House. Maine law currently requires employers to provide accommodations to employees who need to nurse or express breast milk but the penalties for failing to obey this law are very slight. Under the current law, employers face at most a $500 fine and there is nothing in the law that requires an employer to rehire an employee who was fired for expressing breast milk at work.

The bill currently under debate would amend the Maine Human Rights Act so that it would require employers to accommodate nursing mothers in the workplace. If an employer failed to accommodate a nursing mother, it could be held liable for damages it caused to the nursing mother and potentially punitive damages.

“Maine has a rich history of leading the nation on important civil rights protections, but nursing mothers have fallen through the cracks,” said Rep. Anne Graham, D-North Yarmouth, the bill’s sponsor. “Working mothers deserve full equality in the workplace.”

The Maine legislature is currently considering a bill that would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women so that they can continue to perform their jobs despite medical restrictions due to pregnancy. Under current law, employers cannot discriminate against pregnant women because they are pregnant. But if, for instance, a pregnant woman’s doctor gives her a lifting restriction while she is pregnant, an employer does not have to accommodate that restriction unless it provides accommodations to non-pregnant employees under similar circumstances. This new law would require Maine employers to accommodate pregnant workers in the same way they have to accommodate workers with disabilities.

California already requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women. State legislatures in Maryland and Iowa are also currently considering bills similar to the one in Maine that would require employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant women. Maine’s bill, LD 830, is currently assigned to the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which has been introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate, would give pregnant women the right to reasonable accommodations similar to employees with disabilities. Currently, under Maine and federal law, employers may not discriminate against pregnant employees. However, if an employer would ordinarily refuse to provide a certain type of reasonable accommodation to an employee, like regular restroom breaks, it would not have to provide a pregnant employee with that accommodation. The PWFA would change that and require employers to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations.

“Pregnant workers face discrimination in the workplace every day, which is an inexcusable detriment to women and working families in Pennsylvania and across the country,” said Senator Bob Casey, Jr. (D-PA). “My bill will finally extend fairness to pregnant women so that they can continue to contribute to a productive economy while progressing through pregnancy in good health.”

The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) supports the PWFA. To illustrate the need for the PWFA, the NWLC points to a case where Wal-Mart refused to allow a pregnant employee to carry a water bottle at work even though her doctor ordered her to do so. It also points to a case where Old Navy fired an employee who asked management to not require her to lift heavy objects and climb ladders during the final month-and-a-half of her pregnancy. The PWFA is necessary to prevent this type of mistreatment of pregnant workers.

On May 16, 2011, the Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) unanimously found that Total Property Services, Inc. unlawfully discriminated against Heather Hider because she was pregnant. Ms. Hider worked for Total Property Services as a cleaner from January 2009 to September 2009. According to the MHRC investigative report, Ms. Hider provided the MHRC with a recording of the phone message that her boss, Steve Booth, left her to tell her that she was fired. In the message, Mr. Booth told Ms. Hider he decided that he needed to replace her because she was pregnant and due to give birth soon.

In response to Ms. Hider’s complaint to the MHRC, Total Property Services claimed that Mr. Booth no longer worked for it at the time he fired Ms. Hider. However, Mr. Booth continued to oversee Ms. Hider after his alleged separation from the company. Total Property Services also admitted that it told no one about Mr. Booth’s alleged separation from the company. It didn’t tell its employees or its customers. As such, the MHRC found that Mr. Booth continued to have the authority to fire Ms. Hider.

The Maine Employee Rights Group represents Ms. Hider.