Anonymous wrote:
This woman accepted a position that required heavy lifting when she was pregnant (if she's still under probation, then she was pregnant when hired) she knew going into the deal that she might not be able to perform the job continuously (many women go on bedrest or have lifting restrictions during late term pregnancy) and made no plans as the primary provider for her family. This was extremely bad planning and her fault, not the fault of the employer. It is quite unfair for the OP and her sister to attempt to make it sound as if the employer was the bad guy here when the OP's sister just planned very poorly.

THis is the post I (#baitfail poster I guess) am responding to.

I find it completely insensitive. This poster said that the woman made no "plans" as primary provider for her family". WTF?

People need to work. We don't all have the luxury of sitting around our nice little air conditioned desks and working from home when we have a headache!

(I am not the OP nor the OP's sister by the way.)

Anonymous wrote:What does bait fail mean?

People are blaming the woman for accepting a job, knowing she was pregnant and could not do heavy lifting!

What was she supposed to do? People need to work! We have very little safety net in this country, and getting pregnant is one thing that can propel a woman into poverty.

Personally I'd have recommended she end the pregnancy so she could stay working at her job.

Is that what people mean by "poor planning" by this woman? THat she didn't end the pregnancy?

Oh no, they mean she should have "accepted" a job involving only "light work." AS IF the vast majority of people in this country can just go around "accepting" jobs that meet their health conditions.

It just makes me so mad that politicians in this country pay lip service to "life" but do not help women who actually need it.

#baitfail again.

What does bait fail mean?

People are blaming the woman for accepting a job, knowing she was pregnant and could not do heavy lifting!

What was she supposed to do? People need to work! We have very little safety net in this country, and getting pregnant is one thing that can propel a woman into poverty.

Personally I'd have recommended she end the pregnancy so she could stay working at her job.

Is that what people mean by "poor planning" by this woman? THat she didn't end the pregnancy?

Oh no, they mean she should have "accepted" a job involving only "light work." AS IF the vast majority of people in this country can just go around "accepting" jobs that meet their health conditions.

It just makes me so mad that politicians in this country pay lip service to "life" but do not help women who actually need it.

Anonymous wrote:Please stop saying this was "bad planning". I agree that it is not the employers fault, but in this economy, people sometimes have to take whatever job they can find. Especially if the sister is a nurse. Many nursing jobs require heavy lifting, and if you need a job, you need a job and can't just hold out for one that doesn't involve heavy lifting because you are pregnant and might not be able to do it.

Some people -- actually the vast majority of people in the US -- do not have the luxury of waiting for a job that requires only light or sedentary work!

I really wish that the people in this country, including politicians, who oppose abortion and access to contraception would be all over cases like this to provide help and income assistance to women who cannot work due to their pregnancy. I assume that this woman if a nurse as we suppose from the other thread -- does NOT work in a hospital or center run by the Catholic church, given how hard they are making it for their employees to access birth control!

#baitfail.

Don't change the subject.

Please stop saying this was "bad planning". I agree that it is not the employers fault, but in this economy, people sometimes have to take whatever job they can find. Especially if the sister is a nurse. Many nursing jobs require heavy lifting, and if you need a job, you need a job and can't just hold out for one that doesn't involve heavy lifting because you are pregnant and might not be able to do it.

Some people -- actually the vast majority of people in the US -- do not have the luxury of waiting for a job that requires only light or sedentary work!

I really wish that the people in this country, including politicians, who oppose abortion and access to contraception would be all over cases like this to provide help and income assistance to women who cannot work due to their pregnancy. I assume that this woman if a nurse as we suppose from the other thread -- does NOT work in a hospital or center run by the Catholic church, given how hard they are making it for their employees to access birth control!

Anonymous wrote:Yes, THIS PARTICULAR JOB requires heavy lifting. But when a person is disabled, the employer must search all of its jobs to find a job that accommodates the disability -- including jobs that do not require heavy lifting, like being a receptionist, or answering the phone, or doing -- light lifting.. The employer is obviously only pretending to do so if it suspended this woman.

I repeat my advice -- your sister should contact the EEOC.

While this may be true, the EEOC does not consider pregnancy to be a disability (nor should it). Pregnant women are not protected by the disability protections in the labor law. In this case, the female in question was no longer able to perform the functions of her job. She was suspended until either the employer can find a different job for her to do, or she becomes fit to perform the job again.

And yes, some jobs will allow women to use short term disability to cover maternity leave. But there is nothing in the labor laws that requires an employer to consider pregnancy to be a disability.

You can contact the EEOC, but it is unlikely that anything will be done. Even if it is addressed, it is likely that the woman will deliver the child before any resolution is provided.

This woman accepted a position that required heavy lifting when she was pregnant (if she's still under probation, then she was pregnant when hired) she knew going into the deal that she might not be able to perform the job continuously (many women go on bedrest or have lifting restrictions during late term pregnancy) and made no plans as the primary provider for her family. This was extremely bad planning and her fault, not the fault of the employer. It is quite unfair for the OP and her sister to attempt to make it sound as if the employer was the bad guy here when the OP's sister just planned very poorly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, THIS PARTICULAR JOB requires heavy lifting. But when a person is disabled, the employer must search all of its jobs to find a job that accommodates the disability -- including jobs that do not require heavy lifting, like being a receptionist, or answering the phone, or doing -- light lifting.. The employer is obviously only pretending to do so if it suspended this woman.

I repeat my advice -- your sister should contact the EEOC.

That is not true. PP does not know what she is talking about. Contact the EEOC if you want, but they're going to tell you the same thing.

PP is right - if heavy lifting is an essential function of the job, then she must e able to do it I order to keep her job. It is not discriminatory to suspend, lay off or terminate the employment of a disabled person who is unable to perform the essential functions of a job. And an employer is not obligated to offer another position. I don't know where the first poster in this reply got her idea otherwise. Hopefully she's not an attorney.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, THIS PARTICULAR JOB requires heavy lifting. But when a person is disabled, the employer must search all of its jobs to find a job that accommodates the disability -- including jobs that do not require heavy lifting, like being a receptionist, or answering the phone, or doing -- light lifting.. The employer is obviously only pretending to do so if it suspended this woman.

I repeat my advice -- your sister should contact the EEOC.

That is not true. PP does not know what she is talking about. Contact the EEOC if you want, but they're going to tell you the same thing.

Yes, THIS PARTICULAR JOB requires heavy lifting. But when a person is disabled, the employer must search all of its jobs to find a job that accommodates the disability -- including jobs that do not require heavy lifting, like being a receptionist, or answering the phone, or doing -- light lifting.. The employer is obviously only pretending to do so if it suspended this woman.

I repeat my advice -- your sister should contact the EEOC.

I will repeat my advice for your sister to go to the EEOC. Please don't take legal advice from a chat forum.

Anonymous wrote:I'm guessing when she took this job she signed a document that outlined her job duties. One of the duties was probably 'heavy to moderate lifting.' I don't have a warehouse job, but I know I signed that document with similar wording in relation to my work. If she signed a similar document, then the company does not need to make accommodations as she now cannot do the job she was hired to do. As long as they don't fire her, they also have not done anything wrong.

She may need to just realize that she needs to take maternity leave early since she is not capable of working. That or continue to work against her doctor's wishes. It's her choice, not a burden on the company at this point.

Absolutely. I'm an admin and on my contract it states that I have to be able to lift up to 50lbs. I have never been requested to do so, but if I was, and refused (I am also pregnant), I'm sure the company could take similar steps.

Thanks for your input.

I'm guessing when she took this job she signed a document that outlined her job duties. One of the duties was probably 'heavy to moderate lifting.' I don't have a warehouse job, but I know I signed that document with similar wording in relation to my work. If she signed a similar document, then the company does not need to make accommodations as she now cannot do the job she was hired to do. As long as they don't fire her, they also have not done anything wrong.

She may need to just realize that she needs to take maternity leave early since she is not capable of working. That or continue to work against her doctor's wishes. It's her choice, not a burden on the company at this point.

My sister probably posted there - will check it out. I am sorry for re-posting.

She (you?) was not SUSPENDED for being PREGNANT. She was suspended from duty because she got a doctor's note that says she can't do heavy lifting. If the job requires heavy lifting, unfortunately she doesn't have legal recourse. Does it suck? Yes. Is it illegal? No.