Pregnant policewoman's request for light duty denied

[angelmom]

I think her doctor probably agreed out of an abundance of caution. If he didn't agree and something happened to the fetus, she could claim it was the doctor's fault.

Depends on the doctor. My cousin was pg with twins and working in NYC, taking the subway/walking to work every day. At 8 mos she was exhausted and begging the dr to let her stop working, but he said she was doing great and there was no reason for it. She went into preterm labor within hours after he said that at her 34 wk appt. Luckily for the dr the girls are fine, but it could have been really bad.

 

[luthersmama]

The law is very clear on this and it is really quite simple: Disability created by pregnancy has to be treated like disability created by any other medical condition. However, pregnancy itself is not a disability.

This law, which is part of the federal civil rights act, was put in place to protect women from irrational discrimination. Not that long ago it was common to lose your job simply because of being pregnant and because of what might happen because of the pregnancy.

If this woman's doctor says that her pregnancy has caused her to be unable to do her regular duties, then she will get light duty. If she/he has said "She should not be at risk of getting shot" that isn't what the law is intended to protect.

If an officer has a sprained ankle, he or she will get desk duty. If an officer has a pregnancy-related disability, she will get desk duty.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Depends on the doctor. My cousin was pg with twins and working in NYC, taking the subway/walking to work every day. At 8 mos she was exhausted and begging the dr to let her stop working, but he said she was doing great and there was no reason for it. She went into preterm labor within hours after he said that at her 34 wk appt. Luckily for the dr the girls are fine, but it could have been really bad.

Yes, I agree. However, the chances of your cousin having to chase down an armed perp and be shot at during her day on the job or getting into a high speed chase in the car are pretty slim. The demands of a police officer being what they are, the doctor probably thought better safe than sorry. Personally, I don't think some males should be OB/GYNs. Mine actually once compared the pain of labor with that a football player goes through == mentioning Bret Farve by name. I told him to "F" himself and Bret Farve and that I seriously doubted Bret would rather give birth than play football and I went to a different doctor immediately. Unfortunately, sometimes doctors can be Aholes.

 

[JanetElaine]

The law is very clear on this and it is really quite simple: Disability created by pregnancy has to be treated like disability created by any other medical condition. However, pregnancy itself is not a disability.

This law, which is part of the federal civil rights act, was put in place to protect women from irrational discrimination. Not that long ago it was common to lose your job simply because of being pregnant and because of what might happen because of the pregnancy.

If this woman's doctor says that her pregnancy has caused her to be unable to do her regular duties, then she will get light duty. If she/he has said "She should not be at risk of getting shot" that isn't what the law is intended to protect.

If an officer has a sprained ankle, he or she will get desk duty. If an officer has a pregnancy-related disability, she will get desk duty.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Filly]

Controversy Quelled.http://cbs3.com/local/Sonia.Henriques.pregnant.2.717767.html

 

[angelmom]

Yes, I agree. However, the chances of your cousin having to chase down an armed perp and be shot at during her day on the job or getting into a high speed chase in the car are pretty slim. The demands of a police officer being what they are, the doctor probably thought better safe than sorry. Personally, I don't think some males should be OB/GYNs. Mine actually once compared the pain of labor with that a football player goes through == mentioning Bret Farve by name. I told him to "F" himself and Bret Farve and that I seriously doubted Bret would rather give birth than play football and I went to a different doctor immediately. Unfortunately, sometimes doctors can be Aholes.

My point exactly. If she is at risk and a high speed chase or running long distances and wrestling with a perp ("normal duty") would endanger the pregnancy then she might be advised to avoid it (i.e. "light duty"). I know women who jogged, worked, played tennis, etc. all through their pregnancies without batting an eye. I know women who were on total bedrest and were only allowed up once a day to shower and still lost their babies. Everyone is different. The mayor is not the judge of where this woman falls on the spectrum. Her doctor is! So he errs on the side of caution - wow, what a character flaw.

On coworker/partner thing, that could cut both ways. Who would want to be her partner knowing that she might hesitate or hold back when confronting a perp b/c she is worried about the baby?

As for men vs. women, I loved my male doctor. He was empathetic and understanding of my anxiety after my losses. The worst dr I ever had was a woman who had had 2 completely uncomplicated pregnancies and worked through the entire thing and basically told me I needed to get over it. . I switched drs immediately as well. So I don't think having a vagina (or even having children) makes a person a good OB/GYN any more than it makes them a good teacher or pediatrician.

 

[sherri79]

Did you see what the doctor wrote somewhere or are you just going by a quote in a very short article in the newspaper? I would love to see a link to what her doctor actually said.

i am going by the imformation at this link. sorry i was in a hurry this morning and should have posted it.

"She is expecting her first child in November," Friend read from a prepared statement before the mayor and council. "This news, however, is tempered by the fact that she should not be working on the road anymore. As you can imagine, she and her doctor believe that doing so, while carrying a baby, would be unwise given the potential exposure to physical harm or communicable diseases."

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008805060450

 

[luthersmama]

i am going by the imformation at this link. sorry i was in a hurry this morning and should have posted it.
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008805060450

Imho, this sets back the progress made in women's employment options by about 40 years.

If you want to be a cop/prison guard/firefighter/ bank teller , you have to accept the risks that go with it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

My point exactly. If she is at risk and a high speed chase or running long distances and wrestling with a perp ("normal duty") would endanger the pregnancy then she might be advised to avoid it (i.e. "light duty"). I know women who jogged, worked, played tennis, etc. all through their pregnancies without batting an eye. I know women who were on total bedrest and were only allowed up once a day to shower and still lost their babies. Everyone is different. The mayor is not the judge of where this woman falls on the spectrum. Her doctor is! So he errs on the side of caution - wow, what a character flaw.

On coworker/partner thing, that could cut both ways. Who would want to be her partner knowing that she might hesitate or hold back when confronting a perp b/c she is worried about the baby?

As for men vs. women, I loved my male doctor. He was empathetic and understanding of my anxiety after my losses. The worst dr I ever had was a woman who had had 2 completely uncomplicated pregnancies and worked through the entire thing and basically told me I needed to get over it. . I switched drs immediately as well. So I don't think having a vagina (or even having children) makes a person a good OB/GYN any more than it makes them a good teacher or pediatrician.

Good post!!!

 

[sherri79]

Imho, this sets back the progress made in women's employment options by about 40 years.

If you want to be a cop/prison guard/firefighter/ bank teller , you have to accept the risks that go with it.

i agree. i think the men who hire women for those jobs will see the risk this case creates for them. this is a small town with only about 60 full time officers. anytime you hire a employee you take a risk that after you pay to train them they will be hurt and unable to do the job. if you hire a woman of child bearing age then you have greatly increased the risk. with light duty and time off after the birth it will be almost a whole year she can not perform the job she was hired and trained for. a year is too long to expect the other officers to cover her shift. they will need to hire and train someone to replace her while they continue to pay her to perform light duty. the chief will need to deal with having a extra salary to pay and getting and training a employee that will not be needed in a year.

if a woman of child bearing years wants the job to replace the light duty officer do you think the chief will even consider it? if he hires her she could become pregnant next month and he is right back where he started with the added expense of another officer that is on light duty.

 

[MissieMt]

I think this is a perfect example of what I consider a HUGE flaw in womens' fight for equal rights. We want to be treated equally, except when it is inconvenient. I bet before she was pregnant she wanted to be treated like everyone else-male or female.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm all for equality but I would prefer 100% equality not "pick and chose" equality.

 

[Annie]

I think this is a perfect example of what I consider a HUGE flaw in womens' fight for equal rights. We want to be treated equally, except when it is inconvenient. I bet before she was pregnant she wanted to be treated like everyone else-male or female.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm all for equality but I would prefer 100% equality not "pick and chose" equality.

There can never be 100% equality until men can get pregnant and have to deal with nine months of pregnancy and all that can go with it. If a man is given temporary light duty when he has a health issue, then I think she should be given the same if and when she needs it.

 

[luthersmama]

There can never be 100% equality until men can get pregnant and have to deal with nine months of pregnancy and all that can go with it. If a man is given temporary light duty when he has a health issue, then I think she should be given the same if and when she needs it.

Absolutely true, and that is what is required by law.

But unless she has some special issue, just being 2 months pregnant does not justify light duty.

 

[pedinurse]

It doesn't matter what line of work you're in, if your doc says it is endangering the baby or the mom, then she has a right to request light duty. Not every job has that option, and certainly hourly jobs don't have those kinds of benefits, but a unionized job with the bennies of LE does come with those kinds of things.

If a teacher was 2 months along and was told by her OB that being around young children was dangerous to her pregnancy, would you tell her, "Well, you chose to go into teaching. Suck it up and so sad, too bad if you lose your baby?" NO! They would get her a sub and send her home. ASK ME HOW I KNOW!!!

Just b/c you are only 2 mos pg and not showing does not mean the baby cannot be at risk, and if you are a nurse and don't know that then you may have missed a class. That was actually my highest risk period - it is, in fact, the highest risk period for all pregnancies - and once I got to about 14 weeks I did okay. But at 2 months I wasn't allowed to do pretty much anything.

The article clearly says that this woman's DOCTOR (whom I trust over the mayor, the chief of police, or really even the woman herself in this particular argument) says she needs to be on light duty. It isn't complicated.

excuse me? I didn't miss any classes!! what i was saying is that we get a large number of pregnant women straight from the get go who say "i want light duty."

Angelmom:
IF THIS MOM HAD A MEDICAL NEED, THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE! With threatened AB, whatever, YES, you can get off without an issue. But no provider will or should take you off at two months just because you are pregnant!! Why didn't she tell them what "condition" she has? It has apparently come to light, from the way the article was written, that her OB was worried about her being in the line of duty... because she has a uterus?

That is why we as providers have to be VERY careful about interjecting ourselves in situations as this due to our opinions vs. medical need!!!!!!!!

Those are my opinions, DO NOT INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE or my person and back off!! I hate it when people attack others!! get off of it!

 

[pedinurse]

My point exactly. If she is at risk and a high speed chase or running long distances and wrestling with a perp ("normal duty") would endanger the pregnancy then she might be advised to avoid it (i.e. "light duty"). I know women who jogged, worked, played tennis, etc. all through their pregnancies without batting an eye. I know women who were on total bedrest and were only allowed up once a day to shower and still lost their babies. Everyone is different. The mayor is not the judge of where this woman falls on the spectrum. Her doctor is! So he errs on the side of caution - wow, what a character flaw.

On coworker/partner thing, that could cut both ways. Who would want to be her partner knowing that she might hesitate or hold back when confronting a perp b/c she is worried about the baby?

As for men vs. women, I loved my male doctor. He was empathetic and understanding of my anxiety after my losses. The worst dr I ever had was a woman who had had 2 completely uncomplicated pregnancies and worked through the entire thing and basically told me I needed to get over it. . I switched drs immediately as well. So I don't think having a vagina (or even having children) makes a person a good OB/GYN any more than it makes them a good teacher or pediatrician.

well, everyone has an opinion. but she should be able to carry on normal activities UNLESS SHE HAS A MEDICAL CONDITION. pregnancy is NOT a medical condition. they have no right to deny her light duty if there is a reason for it, however, the fact that you have a uterus and you are pregnant does not mean you get light duty. i mean, what's next... saying i am a PO, trying to get pregnant, I get desk duty? that is not right!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

There can never be 100% equality until men can get pregnant and have to deal with nine months of pregnancy and all that can go with it. If a man is given temporary light duty when he has a health issue, then I think she should be given the same if and when she needs it.

I would hate for a woman to NOT ask for light duty if its needed. Certainly, she should never put her baby at risk. However, as with anything along these lines, I would hate for it to be abused.

 

[angelmom]

excuse me? I didn't miss any classes!! what i was saying is that we get a large number of pregnant women straight from the get go who say "i want light duty."

Angelmom:
IF THIS MOM HAD A MEDICAL NEED, THIS WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE! With threatened AB, whatever, YES, you can get off without an issue. But no provider will or should take you off at two months just because you are pregnant!! Why didn't she tell them what "condition" she has? It has apparently come to light, from the way the article was written, that her OB was worried about her being in the line of duty... because she has a uterus?

That is why we as providers have to be VERY careful about interjecting ourselves in situations as this due to our opinions vs. medical need!!!!!!!!

Those are my opinions, DO NOT INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE or my person and back off!! I hate it when people attack others!! get off of it!

I was not insulting your intelligence or attacking you. I was responding to your assertion that she was "only" 2 months pregnant and not even showing so how much danger could she be in, and pointing out that gestation had nothing to do with risk.

Again, my point is that perhaps some women do ask for light duty too quickly. Perhaps some men also "pull a muscle" and ask for light duty at the slightest twinge. There will always be slackers in this world, and to blame it on pregnancy seems a little sexist. A man who had a health issue and needed light duty would not be criticized like this or told to take unpaid leave. People would be much more concerned about how he was going to provide for his family, and probably even set up a network of support for his family. I cannot imagine telling an injured officer or one whose health made active duty inadvisable to suck it up, or that he should have thought of that before he became a cop.

All I was saying is that this town has no policy in place for dealing with pregnant officers even though they have been advised for almost 2 YEARS to do so. They have a policy in place for other officers whose doctors recommend light duty; why not follow that? I happen to trust the doctor and not the mayor when it comes to health decisions, and I don't claim to know from some snippet in a newspaper article whether this woman is truly at risk or malingering. If you look at your own sentence bolded above, I don't know why you wouldn't trust her doctor as well. We don't know the whole story - just what they chose to print. And it's nobody's business the exact condition that puts her at risk, just what her doctor orders. What about HIPPA???

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I think your comment about the little snippet is valid. None of us know from the words "and her doctor agrees" or (whatever they were) exactly what is going on. It seems that if her doctor had a written statement saying that for medical reasons she needed light duty the article would say so. However, we don't know for sure whether she has written orders from the doctor or if she told her doctor that light duty would minimize the risk to her and her baby and the doctor agreed.

This is yet another case where it is easy to point fingers and say who is wrong. I think the media intentially writes articles that way so that people on either side buy/ read their papers/articles. I think that the news selects the details they want to report and that is what we read. In this case, they dangled a carrot to get people intrigued, but never provided any substantial information on what the real details are.

 

[JanetElaine]

I think your comment about the little snippet is valid. None of us know from the words "and her doctor agrees" or (whatever they were) exactly what is going on.

But that's what we discuss on here - little snippets. We never know exactly what's going on, that's the nature of the beastie called messageboard or discussionboard. I always dislike it when people say 'but we don't know the whole story'. WS would be a pretty dead place if we'd have to wait for that to discuss things. Sorry, just had to get it out, nothing personal against anyone!

 

[pedinurse]

I was not insulting your intelligence or attacking you. I was responding to your assertion that she was "only" 2 months pregnant and not even showing so how much danger could she be in, and pointing out that gestation had nothing to do with risk.

Again, my point is that perhaps some women do ask for light duty too quickly. Perhaps some men also "pull a muscle" and ask for light duty at the slightest twinge. There will always be slackers in this world, and to blame it on pregnancy seems a little sexist. A man who had a health issue and needed light duty would not be criticized like this or told to take unpaid leave. People would be much more concerned about how he was going to provide for his family, and probably even set up a network of support for his family. I cannot imagine telling an injured officer or one whose health made active duty inadvisable to suck it up, or that he should have thought of that before he became a cop.

All I was saying is that this town has no policy in place for dealing with pregnant officers even though they have been advised for almost 2 YEARS to do so. They have a policy in place for other officers whose doctors recommend light duty; why not follow that? I happen to trust the doctor and not the mayor when it comes to health decisions, and I don't claim to know from some snippet in a newspaper article whether this woman is truly at risk or malingering. If you look at your own sentence bolded above, I don't know why you wouldn't trust her doctor as well. We don't know the whole story - just what they chose to print. And it's nobody's business the exact condition that puts her at risk, just what her doctor orders. What about HIPPA???

because when you fill out an FMLA or light duty form, you say "due to XYZ"... its not a HIPPA thing. you give medical certification. the person allows you to share their personal information when they come to you and have you fill out those forms. You fill them back out and give them back to the patient. The FMLA / and light duty certification process is all on the patient...
For instance, I can say "I recommend as your provider that you go on light duty due to your preterm labor." That would lead to a conversation about work, filing out the needed paperwork that the patient initiates, ect. But the provider doesn't make you do anything. We have had people go back to work against medical advice (lets say, preterm labor) and then they drop their babies a few days later. But my whole point is you have to have a medical need, not just the POSSIBILITY of a medical need... you can't just say I want so and so off "just because". you have to justify for current condition. that is understood. if she'd had threated AB, whatever, then it would be a totally different issue.

therefore it shouldn't have been an issue - if she had a true medical need that was current. sounds to me like she is healthy as a horse but does not want to get hurt during her pregnancy due to her concern for her infant. am i missing the entire point of the article?
i understand where she is coming from. i would be concerned as well for my infant, but I am looking at this from another standpoint. Equality. you have to treat everyone the same regardless of sex and occupation and pregnancy status. how many people are treated differently in the workplace when they become pregnant? fewer promotions, ect? it happens... that is why so many places have added "pregnancy" to their list of non-discriminatory factors.

it is my understanding that the whole issue was raised because of the risk of putting an unborn child "in harms way" due to her line of work. i say find another job... she could have found a security job if no transfers were available.

What is going to happen when she has the baby? will she want to stay on desk duty because she now has a child and doesn't want to leave her baby if something happens to her?