The Rights Stuff newsletter |
Rights Stuff Table of Contents
CD-ROM Master Index
TEN CASES OF DISCRIMINATION AND DISABILITY
The incidents described in these case studies are based upon complaints filed with the Department of Human Rights. In each case the department found probable cause to believe that there had been a violation of the state Human Rights Act.
We have chosen not to include the real names of the charging parties or the respondents. Although the names of both are a matter of public record once a case is closed, we believe that to publish them here would serve no important public purpose.
Pregnancy is not necessarily a disability, but its complications can be, requiring an accommodation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
When
Heather Powell (not her real name) was out sick with tonsillitis in February
1998, she also learned she was pregnant. Her recovery from tonsillitis was slow,
and compounded by problems with her pregnancy. She was home convalescing for
three weeks, and when she finally could return to work, her physician placed
her on restricted duty. Her factory job required Powell frequently to lift up
to 50 pounds, something she no longer could do safely.
Her employer had threatened to fire her if she didn't come back to work in a week, according to Powell. But after reviewing the note from her doctor, and realizing it could not accommodate Powell's need to avoid heavy lifting, the company told her to stay home until her doctor removed the restrictions.
When her doctor gave his approval, she went back to her job at the end of March, and continued to work--and lift--until August. Then, on August 5, she was hospitalized for a day with more complications from her pregnancy. Her doctor ordered bed rest, and recommended she stay off her feet for a few days. Fearing for her job, she called her supervisor. He asked for a statement from her doctor to prove she had been in the hospital.
The next week Powell supplied the doctor's note to her company's Human Resources Director, who we'll call Angela Thompson. Because she was at risk for pre-term labor, Powell should be restricted to a 40-hour work week--no mandatory overtime--her doctor said. His note also suggested that sitting would be preferable to standing.
The company cannot accommodate your doctor's requirements, Thompson allegedly said. Your job requires continual movement, including walking, bending, stooping and lifting. Those can't be done in a seated position; therefore, we will have to discharge you.
A leave of absence would not be possible, Thompson said, because Powell was not eligible, having worked for the company less than a year. Would there be a job for her after the baby was born? Thompson said she could offer no guarantees.
Powell filed a charge with the Department of Human Rights, alleging discrimination based on sex and disability. In answer to the charge, the company maintained that it could not reasonably accommodate her physician's requirements, and was therefore not guilty of discrimination. A 40-hour per week restriction was not a problem, but the job can't be done sitting down, the company argued.
The department's investigation found that the company read more into the doctor's brief note than was in fact stated: "Recommend restrict work to 40hrs/week, max 8 hr/day due to risk for pre-term labor. Prefer seated jobs as much as possible." Sitting was a preference, not a requirement. Thus, the company could have denied the seated job but allowed Powell to continue working, and she still would have been within her physician's requirements.
If the company was uncertain about Powell's restrictions, it had an opportunity to ask her doctor for more information. Or it could have asked Powell to request more information from her doctor. But it failed to do either. "Rather than engage in this interactive process as required, (the company) unilaterally denied (Powell) the accommodation," the department noted.
While it may be that the company's human resources director was concerned about the physician's language regarding pre-term labor, it was unreasonable for the director to substitute her own judgment for the judgment of the treating physician, the department concluded.
The department found probable cause to believe that the company illegally had discriminated against Powell on the basis of sex and disability, by failing to provide an accommodation required by her pregnancy.
Powell had also alleged that she had been discriminated against, as a pregnant woman, when the company failed to provide her with maternity leave. In this case, the department sided with the company and found no discrimination. The company's policy complied with the Federal Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which requires that one be employed for one year before being eligible for maternity leave.
In a settlement negotiated by the state Attorney General's office, the company agreed to pay Heather Powell $10,000 to settle her claim. It admitted no wrongdoing.
On Prejudice and Pregnancy: An Overview
Your Rights When You Are Pregnant
The Rights Stuff newsletter |
Rights Stuff Table of Contents
CD-ROM Master Index