Baby Drama

Five female Detroit police officers have filed a federal law suit against the city, alleging the department discriminated against them by refusing to place them on light duty when they were pregnant.  Instead, pregnant officers are required to use their sick leave and then go on unpaid leave.

The complaint alleges that "the policy places incredible financial burden on these women, including forcing some to rely on Medicaid in order to obtain health insurance and to use food stamps to support themselves.  The policy also imposes severe emotional burdens on pregnant officers and hampers their career advancement for years after pregnancies."  In short, the female officers feel forced to hide their pregnancies for economic reasons.  Desperate to stay on the payroll, Officer Tisha Prater wore a girdle to hide her pregnancy until she captured a suspect following a foot chase while three months pregnant.

Prater is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, along with officers Sha-Mar Woods, Kelly Lucy, Jamaica Skender, and Angelica Robinson.  Robinson, the lawsuit alleges, "was forced onto sick leave even though she had been working a desk job . . . for more than five years when she became pregnant and although DPD's own medical experts established that she was fully able to perform her job up to the end of her pregnancy."  The officers are seeking damages including lost wages, restored seniority and an injunction preventing the department from continuing the policy.

Police administration officials, however, assert their hands are tied because of an arbitration ruling.  The department used to allow pregnant officers to go on light duty but changed the policy in 2004, after the police officers' union filed a grievance on behalf of a male officer with an off-work injury.  The officer complained that 17 pregnant officers were able to get light duty while he could not.  As a result, the department now only allows light duty for injuries suffered on the job.

There are about 800 female officers on the Detroit force.  A bill to amend the state human rights law and require the department to change its policy recently passed the state House but awaits Senate approval.

Hopefully, the Senate will approve the bill requiring the department to change its policy because the policy is too broad. The main problem with the policy is that it is a "blanket rule" forcing any officer performing any job to go on leave.  Robinson is the best example of the overreaching scope of this policy.  Although she was able to perform her job, she was nevertheless required to leave and endure a financial burden.  Thus, the department needs to, at a minimum, alter the scope of their policy to affect only those officers who are unable to perform their duties.

Classifying pregnancies with other off-work injuries presents another problem because the effect of the policy on female officers who become pregnant as compared to other officers who become injured with a sprained ankle, for example is different.  The complaint alleges that pregnant officers are hampered in their career advancement for years after their pregnancy. Other officers, presumably, do not endure this same career halt when they return from leave.  Such disparity may strengthen the officers' pregnancy discrimination claims for it tends to show that officers with off-work injuries not related to pregnancy are treated differently.  Perhaps if the department develops an alternative "maternity-friendly" or "maternity-conscious" policy that does not harm the career advancement of women simply because their temporary leave is related to pregnancy  the policy would withstand scrutiny.

AL