The Plight of The Pregnant Worker
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
By Dick Meister
Dina Bakst of the Work and Family Legal Center reminds us of an important fact that few people seem to realize – that getting pregnant can cause a woman to lose her job, despite the laws banning employment discrimination against women and the disabled.
Bakst asked, in a recent New York Times column, that we imagine a woman who, seven months pregnant, was fired from her job as a cashier because she needed a few extra bathroom breaks.
That actually happened. So did the firing of a pregnant worker from her retail job after she gave her supervisors a doctor's note asking that she not be required to do any heavy lifting or climbing of ladders during the month and a half before she went on maternity leave.
A federal judge ruled in that case that firing the woman was fair because her employers were not legally obligated to accommodate her needs. A peculiar interpretation of the law, no? If that wasn't illegal discrimination, then what is?
Bakst said that sort of thing happens regularly to pregnant workers. But why? Bakst blames it on a gap between anti-discrimination and disability laws.
It's true enough that federal law and state laws in California and several other states ban discrimination against pregnant workers, and that those laws include the Americans With Disabilities Act. That law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees, including those with medical complications stemming from pregnancy.
But there's a catch – a big catch. Since pregnancy itself is not considered a disability, employers are not required to accommodate most pregnant workers in any way – not in any way whatsoever.
The result, said Bakst, is that "thousands of pregnant women are pushed out of jobs that they are perfectly capable of performing – put on unpaid leave or simply fired –when they request an accommodation to help maintain a healthy pregnancy."
Many of the women involved are single mothers or a family's main breadwinner. And a high number of them are low-income women, many in physically demanding jobs.
A couple of New York legislators have come up with bills that would greatly lessen the problems facing pregnant workers in their state, and hopefully set a pattern for enactment of similar laws elsewhere. Lord knows, they're badly needed.
The proposed New York law would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant women whose health care providers say they need them – unless that would be an undue hardship for the employer.
California and a few other states have enacted laws requiring private employers to provide at least some accommodations such as providing a seat for employees who must spend long periods standing, allowing more frequent restroom breaks, limiting heavy lifting, or transferring pregnant employees to less strenuous or less hazardous jobs.
Bakst said those laws "have been used countless times to help pregnant women keep their jobs."
Thanks to a law enacted late last year, California employers are now also required to provide health coverage for women on pregnancy or childbirth-related leaves.
Bakst, and no doubt others, see such laws as a public health necessity, which they certainly are. Without such protections, pregnant workers fear asking for the accommodations they need for their own health and that of their unborn children, lest they be fired for asking.
Bakst also pointed out that "women who can work longer into their pregnancies often qualify for longer periods of leave following child birth, which facilitates breastfeeding, bonding with and caring for a new child and a smoother and healthier recovery from childbirth."
Women who are forced early into unpaid maternity leaves lose pay, of course, and possibly lose chances for promotions that may be available during the period they are off work. It's even worse for pregnant workers who are simply fired. They not only lose pay, but they also have a tough time finding new jobs in today's weak economy.
There are some important pluses for employers who provide accommodations for pregnant employees. Less turnover, for instance, and greater worker loyalty and productivity. What's more, Bakst noted, "With minor job modifications, a woman might be able to work up until the delivery of her child and return to work fairly soon after giving birth."
That would save her employer the time and cost of finding a replacement. There's this, too: "Employers could be responsible for much higher medical costs if their workers were afraid to ask for accommodations and instead continued doing work that endangered their pregnancies."
This is hardly a minor matter. Three-fourths of the women now entering the workforce will become pregnant on the job. None of them – not a one – should have to face the blatant discrimination that's now commonly faced by pregnant workers in California and nationwide.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dick Meister is a San Francisco-based columnist who has covered labor and politics for more than a half-century as a reporter, editor, author and commentator. Contact him through his website, www.dickmeister.com
- megan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send by email
There is a easy solution to this problem; don't hire women. I am a small business owner, and I don't have the time or resources to deal with a pregnant employee. Most small business owners I know are doing the same thing, it's a matter of survival.
no words. only a defeated, heavy sigh.
Megan...let me sigh along with you...who knew people like this even still existed? Did someone invent a time travel machine and bring back some trailer park trash from the 1950's to post on this site???? Where does CPR get these people??? Why do they come here? I suppose, as I always say, if nothing else, it identifies, clearly, what those of us fighting for justice are still up against.
wow...just wow...
Sorry the continuation of the human race is so inconvenient to business! My apologies for needing extra bathroom breaks while I incubate your future workforce!! Hopefully they'll all be males and afterwards I'll just go crawl into a hole and die so as not to have the audacity to either need a job while being a mother or accept a handout from taxpayers.
The judge was right to allow the business to fire the employee, if you can't do the job and you are a smaller business, that could be the difference between being able to make payroll. What happens if you can't pay some of you employees? You need to wake up, what sounds right and what happens in the real world are completely different. If a business owner doesn't want to hire women because of all the problems that come with it, that's their decision and there is nothing you can do about it. If you don't like it start your own business.
What happens if you have 5 employees and 3 of them pregnant? Yes, it happens. A large business has the money and resources to deal with a problem like that, smaller businesses don't. The more you regulate then you will see more employers either not hire women or fire them when they get pregnant.
I have to side with the business owner on this one. Would you hire someone at your business that wasn't able to perform their duty? Of course not, you would go out of business. Small busineses don't have the luxury that a larger company does,they will do whatever it takes to pay their bills. I'm sure they don't like doing it, but it is necessary.
Pretty darn big leap you're making there, between someone who is completely unable to do their duty and a woman...who MIGHT become pregnant and IF that even happens, may or may not need modified job duties. Quite the leap indeed.
There are a lot of situations that business owners go through, we are instructed to not hire the elderly, why? Workmans Comp nightmare. The elderly are prone to accidents and health problems,if that happens at work a couple of times your workman comp bill triples,or they will cancel you; what are you going to do if they cancel you? The same goes for a pregnant women, if something happens while they are working it turns into a Workmans Comp issue. Are you going to pay the triple workmans comp? If they cancel the policy are you going to find another company to insure the business? What happen to the company and ALL the employess if you can't get insurance? It is in the owners best interest not put their business in that situation.
A lot of this misinformed, sexist comments are just opinion devoid of economic and moral fact...while making all kinds of incorrect assertions and straw men.
Stick to the research...its not black and white...but basic rights and humanity are fundamental:
"Discrimination of Pregnant Women in the Workforce"
Abstract
’The surge in pregnancy complaint make one of the fastest -growing type of employment discrimination charges filed with the EEOCoutpacing the rise in sexual harassment and sex discrimination ‘’( p.7). Data collected by Employment lawyers ( 2005) ,showed that ,’’ in many cases, employers are simply making honest mistakes as they try to understand a variety of federal and state laws governing issues such as pregnancy discrimination and family leave. And they say it's easy to overlook the very real costs of pregnancy to small employers, who may see productivity suffer
But a data collected from pregnant women(2005),” claim they've been unfairly fired ,denied promotions and in some cases urged to terminate pregnancies in order to keep their jobs.’’ The Department of Labor ,(2005), argued that‘’ the rise in pregnancy discrimination cases is important now because more women of child-bearing age are in the labor force: Women make up about 47% of the total labor force, and they're projected to account for more than half of the increase in total labor force growth from 2002 until 2012.
Discrimination is the number one problem pregnant women are facing in the work place dispute the passage of the pregnancy discrimination act that prohibits such practice. The number of women claiming they've been discriminated against on the job because they're pregnant is soaring and it is a huge burden for many employers and the situation need to be address correctly . Women make up about nearly 50 percent of the work force in this country .
What is the pregnancy discrimination act?’’ The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the federal agency responsible for issuing regulations to implement the Act .’’ ‘’The Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibits employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments, from discriminating against you because of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions . An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy or related condition as long as she can perform the major functions of her job. Women who are pregnant or affected by related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations. Pregnant workers cannot be forced to take leave while they are pregnant as long as they are able to perform their jobs .’’
According to a recent analysis of government data by the Washington-based National Partnership for Women & Families (2005), showed that ‘’Pregnancy discrimination complaints filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) jumped 39% from fiscal year 1992 to 2003, that same time, the nation's birthrate dropped 9 %. ’’ According to Armour (2005),‘’The surge in pregnancy complaint make one of the fastest -growing type of employment discrimination charges filed with the EEOC outpacing the rise in sexual harassment and sex discrimination .The charges are coming from a range of women, from those in entry-level jobs as well as those in executive suites. Well-known employers that have faced pregnancy-discrimination lawsuits include Wal-Mart, Hooters and Cincinnati Bell.’’ (p.7 ).
...data collected from pregnant women (2005),’’ claim they've been unfairly fired denied promotions and in some cases urged to terminate pregnancies in order to keep their jobs.’’ According to Marilyn Pickler, 23, of Mesa, Arizona .(2005) ‘’she was working for auto dealership Berge Ford when she told a manager about her pregnancy. About a week later, she says, supervisors told her she was being fired. They told her they were concerned that it would Key not be safe for her to drive, which was part of her job, while she was pregnant, according to the lawsuit ’’.(p,9)
"I burst into tears," Pickler says. "They thought I was not going to be able to do my job. They thought I would throw up or have a cramp. But pregnant women work every day. It just wasn't fair."
According to the same article of the USA TODAY (2005), ‘’the EEOC filed a lawsuit on Pickler's behalf, and the case was settled out of court for $70,000. Her son, Jesse, is 3, and Pickler, who is now a stay-at-home mom, is pregnant again.’’ (p.7). According to the Department of Labor (2005 ) ‘’The rise in pregnancy discrimination cases is important now because more women of child-bearing age are in the labor force: Women make up about 47% of the total labor force, and they're projected to account for more than half of the increase in total labor force growth from 2002 until 2012”
A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002), confirmed that’’ more working women are having children at a later age, when careers are better established and more is financially at stake. In 2000, the average American woman having her first child was almost 25 years old. In 1970, the average age was 21.4 years for a first birth,”
Karpatkin of legal momentum (2010), stated that “Pregnancy discrimination cases also are costing companies more money. In fiscal year 2003, the EEOC and state and local agencies collected $12.4 million from charges of pregnancy discrimination (that amount excludes any awards obtained through lawsuits), vs. $3.7 million collected in 1992. Money may also come from other sources, such as conciliation agreements with employers and benefits obtained through mediation .The length of time it takes a case to come to trial or settle can vary. Some cases are resolved within a year; some may drag on in the courts for a number of years.”(p.4 ). O'Neill, a regional lawyer with the EEOC (2010), said "We've seen an explosion, a huge increase in cases ". "The kind of cases we're seeing are very blatant, cases where managers say, 'We don't want pregnant women working here " (p.6).
Several factors may be behind trend why so many lawsuits are brought against employers. Michael Lotito (2005) maintained that ‘’part of the increase in discrimination claims could be coming simply because employers are making honest mistakes or are confused by conflicting laws. Many states have protections for pregnant women that go beyond the federal law.
For example, they may mandate that pregnant women be allowed to get some paid time off through employee payroll taxes. Federal law allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave. More pregnant women are staying in the workplace rather than going on early leave. More women are working while pregnant, and they're working further into their pregnancies” (p.8). According to legal experts (2005),’’ Generally , under current federal law, an employer shouldn't ask job applicants if they are pregnant; a job seeker also is not required to inform an employer of her pregnancy. An employer also can't force a pregnant woman to take time off during her pregnancy or force her to quit because of fears the work may be hazardous to her or her fetus. Employees who go on maternity leave must generally get the same treatment as other employees with disabilities or time off.’’(p.5). But for Susan Kenna, 38, (2004) “says her employer didn't make accommodations for her when she became pregnant with triplets. She says managers cut her pay after she needed to go on bed rest, and she says she was cut out of meetings before being put on bed rest and generally pressured to quit. She was on bed rest for one week.(p.7).
In the same newsweek article (2004) Kenna, who worked as a director at Gitto/Global Corp., went into early labor on Sept. 28, 2001, and her triplets died shortly after birth. She says in a lawsuit filed last year against her employer that stress over discrimination played a role in triggering the early births.(p,12). "I believe the stress caused my pre-term labor, and I filed a lawsuit because I didn't want my children to die in vain," says Kenna, of Sterling, Mass., who is now the mother of 2-year-old twin girls and a son who is just over 2 months old. "A lot of people at companies are getting away with this, and they have to be called on their bad behavior ." According to the National Partnership for Women & Families analysis of government data (2005) ‘’In the decade before the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, more than half of employed women quit their jobs when they became pregnant’’. The non-profit education and advocacy group (2005 )’’ also found that by the early 1990s, that number dropped to 27% of pregnant women ’’.
Roberta Carlton (2005), responded ‘’she's seen it firsthand. When she was working as a manager at a software company, she says she wanted to hire a woman who had just had a baby. She says her boss said the job applicant was a new parent and wouldn't be able to put in the hours. What the boss didn't know was that Carlton was three months pregnant at the time.’’(p,7 ).
Mounting research (2005) showed that’’ women who become pregnant are viewed as less competent in the workplace — a view that is held by both male and female co-workers ’’ The Journal of Organizational Behavior published one study in (1993 ) ‘’for pregnant and non-pregnant women performed tasks that were rated by college students drafted for the research. While both subjects performed the same, those who were pregnant consistently received lower performance ratings. They were viewed as overly emotional, often irrational, physically limited and less than committed to their jobs, according to the report .’’ According to another study published in the Journal of Business and Psychology (1997 ) ‘’ pregnant women were interviewed about their own experiences on the job. About half said their supervisors' reactions to their pregnancies were negative. They also reported intrusive comments from co-workers, including such comments as, "Why are you eating so much?" and, "Do you have stretch marks yet?" About half of pregnant women managers said subordinates became upset or hostile.’’(p7).
Carlton, 39 (2005) concluded "You wonder how many women deal with this," who went on maternity leave and was later laid off. She now is a vice president at a public relations firm in Lexington, Mass. "I thought pregnancy was something people were educated about. I hadn't realized anything that blatant hap pened anymore."(p,8), Many Employers have concerns or are unfamiliar with women pregnancy law. But employment lawyers (2005), ‘’also point out that there are some valid concerns for companies. Small employers can be especially hard hit if they have a large number of women who go out on maternity leave productivity can suffer, and there can be extra work for co-workers who are forced to pick up the slack .Employers can also wind up in a bind if they hire a woman who goes on maternity leave during a critical time, such as a tax-preparation firm that loses a woman to leave during April, when demand is at its peak .’’ Michael Lotito, a San Francisco-based employment lawyer.(2005),argued that ‘’It can create an enormous challenge for a small organization," He says employers can also feel unable to take disciplinary action against a pregnant employee who isn't performing ‘’(p,8)
Employers of pregnant women need to make sure that they understand all the laws regarding the right of pregnant women, and know how to handle a problem involving pregnant women correctly and properly, that will minimize unnecessary lawsuits and fights.
They need to keep in mind that a pregnant woman can still accomplish many tasks contrary to the stereotype. Employers and co-workers of pregnant women need to stop all kind of stereotypes and prejudices they need to be supportive and helpful thru the time of pregnancy. The pregnant women deserve to be treat with respect and dignity."
Facts to consider....
Jeffson, you need to stick to reality! Do you own your own business? As usual you are one sided in your assessment. Your article made my point; don’t hire women! If you don’t hire women you don’t have to worry about all the conflicting laws, lawsuits, workman comp issues, and all the other baggage that comes with hiring a women. Do you have any idea all the laws and regulations we have to follow? All the State, County, Federal, OSHA, BAR, ARB, environmental, disability, and city laws, there are hundreds of millions of laws we have to follow, and if we break one of them it could cost us our business between all the fines a legal fees. Again, smaller businesses doesn't have the money or resources to go to court. And yes this country is sue happy; the lawyers are looking at any way to make a quick buck. I can hire whoever I want, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. If you don’t hire women then you don’t have to worry about it, PERIOD! I WILL NOT PUT MY BUSINESS IN THAT POSITION!