EEOC Takes Action On Case Against Detroit Police Department Over Maternity Leave Discrimination

Main Category: Pregnancy / Obstetrics
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice;  Public Health
Article Date: 12 May 2008 - 3:00 PST

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently found discriminatory a Detroit Police Department policy that denies light duty to pregnant police officers and treats pregnancies as off-the-job injuries, the Detroit News reports. The case involves a complaint filed by police officer Tisha Prater, who was denied light-duty work and placed on unpaid leave in July 2007.

An EEOC investigator who handled Prater's complaint wrote in an April 15 letter that the police department's policy likely violates Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 because Prater "was forced to take a leave of absence because of her sex." EEOC recommended the police department change its policy and give Prater about $35,000 in back pay and damages. EEOC sent the case to conciliation in an effort to resolve the case. If the city and Prater are unable to reach an agreement, EEOC is expected to issue a "right-to-sue" letter, the News reports.

Prater said that she expects she will have to file a lawsuit against the department in federal court. Detroit police officials said they could not discuss details of the case because of privacy laws, but they denied that officers are put on unpaid leave as soon as they disclose they are pregnant. The officials said police officers are put on unpaid leave only when their physicians report that they cannot perform their full duties safely.

Deputy Chief James Tate said the department changed the policy because of an arbitration ruling in 2004, when the police union filed a grievance on behalf of a male police officer with an off-work injury. According to police arbitration documents, the officer complained that 17 pregnant officers were able to get light duty while he could not.

Joanna Grossman, a law professor at Hofstra University, said policy changes that limit light-duty work to on-the-job injuries could "run afoul" of federal law. She added that a federal court in New York ruled that the Suffolk County Police Department violated the Civil Rights Act when it made a similar change because the change targeted pregnant women and disproportionately affected them.

Glen Lenhoff, an attorney who specializes in employment law, said it clearly would be illegal for the police department to require women to go on unpaid leave because of pregnancy. However, as long as changes in the officers' status is linked to their physician's recommendation -- as is the case with Prater -- the policy would not be deemed illegal, Lenhoff added. Lenhoff said the federal Family and Medical Leave Act does require the department to take Prater back when she returns from leave, but he added the "law does not require the police department to give her a less physically onerous assignment."

Frank Guido, general counsel of the Police Officers Association of Michigan, said state police departments have a range of policies and collective bargaining provisions with respect to placing officers on restricted duty. "There's no set pattern," Guido said, adding that Detroit's situation is not unique (Egan, Detroit News, 5/8).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.