Pregnancy

---

          As her pregnancy proceeded, she avoided the best she could the lifting of heavy objects trading tasks with coworkers when available. At seven months her supervisor asked her to bring in a note from her doctor setting forth her restrictions. Subsequently, because of the lifting restrictions, she was placed onto unpaid leave despite pleas to continue working only in a different section such as the deli section. She could return to work once the child arrived.

           Patricia should not have to choose between her job and the health of her pregnancy but this what the policies of her employer compelled her to do.

           Ethan and Patricia were advised by family and friends to sue their employer. One friend told them of a Supreme Court Case, Young v. UPS, in which employers who make accommodations for disabilities and on the job injuries while refusing to accommodate for pregnancy violates the Pregnancy Discrimination act.         Patricia was told to seek the help of the National Women’s Law Center.

            Her employer after further litigation revised its policies. Appearing to be a step forward, but the experiences seen on YouTube and elsewhere indicate otherwise.

            In Laurel Maryland in a similar situation, a pregnant woman asked to be shifted as a cashier to avoid contact with chemicals during her pregnancy. Her requests were ignored and eventually she was fired.

Having heard of this story in Laurel, Patricia did not sue and continued her job as given to her.

            Patricia did call her congressman for help. None came.

(As a side comment, under Federal and Maryland law, Patricia’s employer is now required to provide reasonable accommodations limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, UNLESS IT CASUSES UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE STORE. These last few words are intentionally highlighted pointing out the battle continues for the Patricias of this country. What is undue hardship, and who decides this?)