work trip while pregnant - is business class a reasonable ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

It is true if the accommodation is offered to others for medical reasons. I’m sorry you don’t like that but it’s how the law treats pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

It is true if the accommodation is offered to others for medical reasons. I’m sorry you don’t like that but it’s how the law treats pregnancy.

Sincerely, can you provide a source? I understand you to be saying that if an accommodation is required for one condition it would be required for another? So if a large monitor is required for someone with a vision impairment it would also be required for someone with leukemia? That makes no sense to me.

(And none of this has anything to do with what I “like”)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

It is true if the accommodation is offered to others for medical reasons. I’m sorry you don’t like that but it’s how the law treats pregnancy.

Sincerely, can you provide a source? I understand you to be saying that if an accommodation is required for one condition it would be required for another? So if a large monitor is required for someone with a vision impairment it would also be required for someone with leukemia? That makes no sense to me.

(And none of this has anything to do with what I “like”)

Read the EEOC. If a company gives business class for a non-pregnancy medical condition, it is discrimination not to grant it for a similar condition occurring in pregnancy. So if Al wants it for his replaced hip, Susan gets it for her pregnancy-related pinched nerve. There are very few medical conditions that would likely get a business class letter that don’t occur in pregnancy (most common one in my agency is back injury.) The fact that something else may also help is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

It is true if the accommodation is offered to others for medical reasons. I’m sorry you don’t like that but it’s how the law treats pregnancy.

Sincerely, can you provide a source? I understand you to be saying that if an accommodation is required for one condition it would be required for another? So if a large monitor is required for someone with a vision impairment it would also be required for someone with leukemia? That makes no sense to me.

(And none of this has anything to do with what I “like”)

Read the EEOC. If a company gives business class for a non-pregnancy medical condition, it is discrimination not to grant it for a similar condition occurring in pregnancy. So if Al wants it for his replaced hip, Susan gets it for her pregnancy-related pinched nerve. There are very few medical conditions that would likely get a business class letter that don’t occur in pregnancy (most common one in my agency is back injury.) The fact that something else may also help is irrelevant.

I understand what you are saying about pregnancy discrimination. And I understand that pregnancy associated conditions need to be accommodated to the same extent as non-pregnancy associated conditions.

But that is not the same thing as saying a pregnant person is entitled to any accommodation that is given to anyone.

(And I can’t “read the EEOC”. It is not a document. I have read the ADA and some of the associated guidance.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want it, you pay the difference.

This^^

You (and others) embarrass yourself asking for special accommodations for pregnancy. If you need something special, you should be at home, on bedrest.

This is disgusting. Would you say the same thing to a man who had a hernia? Or some prostate issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

It is true if the accommodation is offered to others for medical reasons. I’m sorry you don’t like that but it’s how the law treats pregnancy.

Sincerely, can you provide a source? I understand you to be saying that if an accommodation is required for one condition it would be required for another? So if a large monitor is required for someone with a vision impairment it would also be required for someone with leukemia? That makes no sense to me.

(And none of this has anything to do with what I “like”)

Read the EEOC. If a company gives business class for a non-pregnancy medical condition, it is discrimination not to grant it for a similar condition occurring in pregnancy. So if Al wants it for his replaced hip, Susan gets it for her pregnancy-related pinched nerve. There are very few medical conditions that would likely get a business class letter that don’t occur in pregnancy (most common one in my agency is back injury.) The fact that something else may also help is irrelevant.

I understand what you are saying about pregnancy discrimination. And I understand that pregnancy associated conditions need to be accommodated to the same extent as non-pregnancy associated conditions.

But that is not the same thing as saying a pregnant person is entitled to any accommodation that is given to anyone.

(And I can’t “read the EEOC”. It is not a document. I have read the ADA and some of the associated guidance.)

In practice that is exactly what it means, if the accommodation is given as they usually are based on a doctors recommendation. Because otherwise you will be saying “company x took doctor y’s recommendation for business class for one employee but not Dr. Z’s recommendation for another employee” and then you will have a discrimination suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

It is true if the accommodation is offered to others for medical reasons. I’m sorry you don’t like that but it’s how the law treats pregnancy.

Sincerely, can you provide a source? I understand you to be saying that if an accommodation is required for one condition it would be required for another? So if a large monitor is required for someone with a vision impairment it would also be required for someone with leukemia? That makes no sense to me.

(And none of this has anything to do with what I “like”)

Read the EEOC. If a company gives business class for a non-pregnancy medical condition, it is discrimination not to grant it for a similar condition occurring in pregnancy. So if Al wants it for his replaced hip, Susan gets it for her pregnancy-related pinched nerve. There are very few medical conditions that would likely get a business class letter that don’t occur in pregnancy (most common one in my agency is back injury.) The fact that something else may also help is irrelevant.

I understand what you are saying about pregnancy discrimination. And I understand that pregnancy associated conditions need to be accommodated to the same extent as non-pregnancy associated conditions.

But that is not the same thing as saying a pregnant person is entitled to any accommodation that is given to anyone.

(And I can’t “read the EEOC”. It is not a document. I have read the ADA and some of the associated guidance.)

In practice that is exactly what it means, if the accommodation is given as they usually are based on a doctors recommendation. Because otherwise you will be saying “company x took doctor y’s recommendation for business class for one employee but not Dr. Z’s recommendation for another employee” and then you will have a discrimination suit.

I understand what you are saying, but I’m not interested in what decisions may be made based on fear of litigation. I’m trying to get at what the law requires. And the law simply does not require giving a pregnant woman (absent other conditions) a business class seat just because a person in a full leg cast may require such an accommodation. And reasonable accommodation law does not require providing everything possible at an employer’s expense out of sheer mitigation of a small risk, particularly when it can be equally as accommodated by other means.

[Anonymous]

My Dr said no overseas flight after 30/31 weeks. He point blank asked said he could not in good conscience allow me to potentially give birth on a plane or in a foreign country…and possibly be stuck there.
Zoom it in and/or send a co-worker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

....no? But since the employer is telling her she needs to be on a flight, they need to pay for that to happen safely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

Well of course not, because my option is to not eat. If my employer said I MUST PUT FOOD IN MY MOUTH at the business dinner as part of my job, then yes, they'd have to provide food I was allowed to eat per my doctor's recommendations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate health matter and that’s a long flight. I’m sorry you even entertain the notion of being considered a “diva” for being concerned about your physical well-being on a long-haul flight at 31 weeks pregnant. I would ask.

How is it a legitimate health matter? What about business class is healthier?

Pregnancy is a tremendous change in the health and well-being of the woman. Business class is roomier. Are you dense?

+1. "How is it a legitimate health matter," WTAF. Let's guess, PP, you are one of those guys that thinks women should be denied access to abortion because "it's no harder than carrying a handbag around and she can just give the baby up for adoption when it's born." Pregnancy is a serious health condition, yes, dumb-dumb. And OP, you are not being a diva to ask about this. I have worked for companies that upgrade travelers at their request because they're "big men" and "need more room," or "sprained their ankle hiking" or whatever lame excuse. Plus if your company is already willing to pay $3K to send you overseas, they can suck up the extra.

Of course pregnancy is a legitimate health condition. But how will being in business class address that health condition? Of course it will be more comfortable, and I personally think the company should spring for it for that reason alone. But the PP said being in business class is necessary to address a health condition, yet no one seems able to explain how exactly it will do that.

Pregnant women are at increased risk of clots, and having your legs cramped up for 8hr vs stretched out for 8hr affects clotting risk tremendously.

No it really doesn't. The issue is being seated for that long, regardless of whether your knees are bent at a 90 degree angle or a 110 degree angle. In either circumstance, OP should get up and move.
Economy v. Business, is about comfort not medical risk.

Amazing how many MDs disagree with your assessment. Mine was happy to write a letter saying the increased space and the ability to lie flat was beneficial to avoid clots. Weird they didn’t ask you first…

So is coumadin and compression socks. Would you argue that your employer is obligated to provide them to you as an accommodation?

No, I would argue my employer would as obligated to offer me the accommodation my MD recommended for international travel. You are really wrapped around the axel that pregnant women should suffer, maybe work on that.

I am not.

To be clear, I think OP should not have to go on the trip and if she does have to go she should ask and her employer should grant the upgrade to business.

What I am saying is that there is no medical reason why an employer should be legally obligated to give it. Things that are "beneficial to avoid an outcome" are not required accommodations. OP could also avoid a blood clot by taking a blood thinner, wearing compression socks, getting up and walking, and moving her feet around in an economy class seat.

The fact that a doctor put in writing that business class is a good idea does not translate into any obligation on an employer.

Per the law, it absolutely does put that obligation on the employer if business class is granted an an accommodation for any other medical condition, which many do. Pregnant women don’t take blood thinners to accommodate an employers requirement for travel.

This simply isn’t true. There is a difference between the legal requirement for an employer to provide accommodations to enable a person to perform the job and a general best practice that a person take certain steps to mitigate risk. An OB would likely tell me that I should avoid certain foods to mitigate risk, for example. That does not translate into an obligation on my employer to provide the preferred food for me at a business dinner.

It is true if the accommodation is offered to others for medical reasons. I’m sorry you don’t like that but it’s how the law treats pregnancy.

Sincerely, can you provide a source? I understand you to be saying that if an accommodation is required for one condition it would be required for another? So if a large monitor is required for someone with a vision impairment it would also be required for someone with leukemia? That makes no sense to me.

(And none of this has anything to do with what I “like”)

Read the EEOC. If a company gives business class for a non-pregnancy medical condition, it is discrimination not to grant it for a similar condition occurring in pregnancy. So if Al wants it for his replaced hip, Susan gets it for her pregnancy-related pinched nerve. There are very few medical conditions that would likely get a business class letter that don’t occur in pregnancy (most common one in my agency is back injury.) The fact that something else may also help is irrelevant.

I understand what you are saying about pregnancy discrimination. And I understand that pregnancy associated conditions need to be accommodated to the same extent as non-pregnancy associated conditions.

But that is not the same thing as saying a pregnant person is entitled to any accommodation that is given to anyone.

(And I can’t “read the EEOC”. It is not a document. I have read the ADA and some of the associated guidance.)

In practice that is exactly what it means, if the accommodation is given as they usually are based on a doctors recommendation. Because otherwise you will be saying “company x took doctor y’s recommendation for business class for one employee but not Dr. Z’s recommendation for another employee” and then you will have a discrimination suit.

I understand what you are saying, but I’m not interested in what decisions may be made based on fear of litigation. I’m trying to get at what the law requires. And the law simply does not require giving a pregnant woman (absent other conditions) a business class seat just because a person in a full leg cast may require such an accommodation. And reasonable accommodation law does not require providing everything possible at an employer’s expense out of sheer mitigation of a small risk, particularly when it can be equally as accommodated by other means.

Except the law does not require an employee to take a lesser accommodation (compression socks) unless it is equally sufficient, and since most pregnant women wear compression socks anyway, it would be moot. If someone needs a seat due to being in a cast and wanting more leg room, it’s obviously just as good to put them in a walking cast so their leg fits into coach. If pain is your X factor, the pregnant woman is probably in more pain because hypothetical cast dude can take painkillers and that’s just as good.

Small risk in pregnancy is not something doctors mess around with, which is why they’ll say their medical recommendation is business or first class. My doctor also restricted my overseas travel to Western Europe and specific parts of Asia due to the (small) risk of Zika. My employer honored that as well, they did not say “bug spray is just as good”.

[Anonymous]

Is it not standard for companies to pay for business class on flights of this length?

What kind of business is this?

[Anonymous]

I’d assume that I’d have to pay the extra cost in my own. But I’m a federal worker and nobody gets extra perks unless you work under trumps admin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been pregnant four times and have flown at 35 weeks pregnant. I’m not quite sure how business class would help, to be honest. I would try to get out of the trip.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been pregnant four times and have flown at 35 weeks pregnant. I’m not quite sure how business class would help, to be honest. I would try to get out of the trip.

+1

+2. You can either go on this trip or not, but the issue is plane travel not what class you are in. I wouldn't go.