吃瓜直播

MONTGOMERY, Ala. 鈥� The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday recognized for the first time that employers have an obligation to provide job modifications to workers who are breastfeeding on the same terms as they accommodate workers for other conditions, and held that failing to provide them with necessary accommodations on the job can be tantamount to firing them.

In the case, Hicks v. Tuscaloosa, the court upheld a jury's verdict finding that Stephanie Hicks, who worked for the West Alabama Narcotics Task Force, was discriminated against when she was demoted to patrol duty just eight days after her return from maternity leave and then denied accommodations for breastfeeding, forcing her to quit. The 吃瓜直播 and the Center for WorkLife Law submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of 22 women鈥檚 rights organizations and helped argue the case before the court last month.

Agent Hicks had requested a desk job because the bulletproof vest officers must wear on patrol interfered with breastfeeding and put her at risk of infection and other medical complications. The department denied her request even though other officers were routinely provided the same accommodation for other reasons. Her supervisors told her that she seemed 鈥渃hanged,鈥� and intimated that it was because she had the 鈥渂aby blues.鈥� They were also overheard complaining about the length of time she had taken off for maternity leave, referring to her as a 鈥渟tupid cunt,鈥� and saying they would 鈥渇ind any way鈥� to 鈥済et rid of that bitch.鈥�

鈥淚 loved my job as a police officer, but I was demeaned, demoted and discriminated against for choosing to be a mom, and then forced to choose between my job and breastfeeding,鈥� said Hicks. 鈥淚 took a stand and fought back on behalf of all women so no other moms would be put in this situation.鈥�

This court decision follows the Supreme Court鈥檚 recent decision in Young v. U.P.S., which held that an employer鈥檚 failure to provide accommodations related to pregnancy 鈥� in that case, a request for light duty due to a lifting restriction 鈥� could amount to sex discrimination.

The court鈥檚 decision also recognizes that liability for pregnancy discrimination does not end simply because a woman is no longer pregnant. The Eleventh Circuit is only the second appellate court 鈥� after the Fifth Circuit 鈥� to hold that women who are breastfeeding are protected under Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment. This decision goes further by recognizing a right to equal accommodations, and that failing to provide women with those accommodations may sometimes leave them with no choice but to resign.

鈥淭he Pregnancy Discrimination Act was enacted so that women would no longer be put in the position of having to choose between having a family and continuing to work, yet that is exactly what happened to Agent Hicks when she was reassigned to patrol,鈥� said Galen Sherwin, senior staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播 Women鈥檚 Rights Project. 鈥淭he court鈥檚 ruling vindicates the rights of new mothers to be treated equally and with dignity on the job.鈥�

鈥淲e were very pleased that the court adopted the legal arguments and even some of the specific language in our amicus brief,鈥� said Hilary Rau, staff attorney with the Center for WorkLife Law. 鈥淎gent Hicks was given the impossible choice between risking her life by patrolling without a properly fitting bulletproof vest and risking her health and ability to breastfeed by wearing a heavy vest that unsafely compressed her chest. This ruling is a huge victory for all new and expecting moms who need equal accommodations at work so that they can continue to support their families.鈥�

The 吃瓜直播 has previously succeeded in similar pregnancy discrimination cases, including a federal jury鈥檚 verdict against a Suffolk County, New York police department in 2006, which found the department discriminated against women officers by denying them access to limited duty positions, like working the precinct desk, during their pregnancies; and a settlement in 2013 of its complaint against the Wallingford, Connecticut police department on behalf of police officer Annie Balcastro, whom the department denied a 鈥渓ight duty鈥� assignment while she was pregnant.

The 吃瓜直播 has also filed recent pregnancy discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of female police officers in Cromwell, Connecticut and Frankfort, Illinois.

The 22 organizations on whose behalf the 吃瓜直播 and the Center for WorkLife Law submitted the amicus brief include the 吃瓜直播 of Alabama, Inc., 9to5, A Better Balance, California Women鈥檚 Law Center, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Values @ Work, Feminist Majority Foundation, Gender Justice, Legal Aid Society 鈥� Employment Law Center, Legal Momentum, Legal Voice, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Association of Working Women, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women鈥檚 Law Center, Southwest Women鈥檚 Law Center, Women Employed, Women鈥檚 Law Center of Maryland, Inc., Women鈥檚 Law Project, and the United States Breastfeeding Committee.

Today鈥檚 opinion can be found here:
/legal-document/hicks-v-tuscaloosa-opinion

The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 brief can be found here:
/legal-document/hicks-v-tuscaloosa-amicus-brief