[kmn360]

Hi,

Lots of good advise. But she is protected by law and even in Texas, it is illegal. Yes they may try to say it is something else, but in most cases they do not win in court. I would contact the lawyer 1st and HR second or better yet let them contact the HR department. There are a lot of mangers who try to by pass the HR department and get bit in the end. I hope this is the case for you.

Good luck and congratulations!

[Tampagirl]

Did your wife get a letter/note for work from here OB/GYN saying that she was unable to lift anything over 25 lbs? If so that's probably what got her fired even though it's pregnancy related. Most hospitals require for any position a certain weight that employees must be able to lift and if they can't meet that requirement they are no longer "qualified" for that position.

Most larger facilities have COBRA insurance where you can pay for the premiums yourself from the termination date until it's no longer needed but it is expensive.

[Kymmi]

I agree that if they actually fired her then it is illegal however if they told her she could not work until the weight restriction was lifted than that is not illegal because they didnt fire her due to her pregnancy but due to her inability to perform her job duties. I would be totally surprised if her personnel record actually said her postion was terminated due to pregnancy. I would be more willing to bet her personal file says that she is placed on leave until she she receives clearance from her MD with no restrictions.
I recently has a Jones fracture of my left foot and I was placed in a walking boot and was allowed to walk with no restrictions per MD however the boot was open toed of course and it is hospital policy that toes must be covered so although I was allowed to walk with no restrictions the open toe thing went against hospital policy and was a safety issue so therefore I could not work for 8 weeks until the boot was removed and so many people told me that this violated the americans with disability act however it did not because I was not being discriminated against because of my fx but I was unable to perform my job description safely. The only time you can claim discrimation because of a disability is when you are able to perform the job description safely with a disability.

[hope3456]

When I was pregnant, my DON wanted to fire me - I was really on her hate list for unrelated reasons. My MD gave me a 'order' to cut down on my hours. I didn't b/c I didn't want to put my job in jeopardy......actually i didn't care so much about the job......I NEEDED THE HEALTH INSURANCE!!!!

When I did go on leave I THANK GOD that I had just been there a year so I was covered by FMLA.

Yeah I was lifting heavy patients, moving beds ect right up till 8.5 months. I had a horrible delivery complete with a severe postpartum hemorrage. I do wonder if the lifting was a factor.

I didn't know that CHP+ covered maternity care at the time.....if I had I would have quit the job and got on that.

Don't y'all just love our health care system??? It seems that when a person needs their job related health insurance the most is when they are least able to work at that job to get it.

[Hopefull2009]

The hospital is required to make reasonable accomodations for her, and I can think of a ton of jobs that doesn't require heavy lifting, namely newborn nursery or a NICU if your hospital has one or telephone triage.

However, I am suprised that you didn't meantion WHY she was given light duty. Because a normal pregnancy doesn't require that.

You should also be getting a COBRA package if she was terminated. Yes, I know it's expensive with the maternity rider, but I guarantee it will be cheaper than the hospital bill, and you never know what a pregnancy will bring.

She isn't elibible for FMLA unless she has been employeed a full 12 months prior and it's only for 12 weeks.

[Quickbeam]

I never worked at any hospitals that offered light duty for pregnancy. If they had, we'd often would have had no one to do care. In my state an employer is not obligated to offer light duty. They can also define reasonable accommodations themselves. Many hospitals have successfully argued that it is an undue hardship to create light duty jobs for RNs.

All of this circled back to the essential functions of the job.

[mianders]

Originally Posted by feebebe23

I might be wrong....but I have always been told in nursing there is no such thing as "light duty." (unless it is a work related injury) Your either there in full capacity or your at home. In the case of pregnancy...if your doctor takes you off of work you are on FEMLA for up to 12 weeks....you need to have short term and/or long term disability to help with income and paying insurance premiums.

I worked as a nurse during my entire pregnancy....uncomplicated pregnancy mind you. I always performed my job well and my co-workers always helped with the heavy lifting when necessary.

There was another nurse there who refused to take a full patient load because she was "pregnant." She was fired....not for being pregnant....but for refusing to do her job. You can consult a lawyer....but I can promise your wife's employer documented the reason for her termination well.....and they didn't use the word "pregnant."

I'm not placing any blame on your wife....I know there are lots of unethical employers out there....sorry for your bad luck

According to title VII of the Civil rights act the employer is required to accommodate her during the pregnancy. What they did is illegal. It is not refusing to do your job it is obeying doctors orders. If people had not stood up against this type of abuse we would not even have a Civil Rights act.

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by Quickbeam

I never worked at any hospitals that offered light duty for pregnancy. If they had, we'd often would have had no one to do care. In my state an employer is not obligated to offer light duty. They can also define reasonable accommodations themselves. Many hospitals have successfully argued that it is an undue hardship to create light duty jobs for RNs.

All of this circled back to the essential functions of the job.

Would this not be something that may end up being decided in a courtroom? The employer will claim it was an undue hardship to provide this pregnant woman with the type of accommodation that she needed and the employee will argue that they are using pretense of undue hardship, to fire her because they just don't want to have to accommodate her and have to set precedent for future employees.Doesn't it come down to who is more credible in the courtroom?

[Quickbeam]

Employers win a staggering percentage of these cases. Over 90% per the last seminar I went to. It can be difficult to find an atty to take the case because unless the employer has done something really stupid, they tend to win.

A lot depends on the facts. Who did what , why, etc.

I've been in work comp, occ health and rehab for a lot of years. I know these issues are emotional and difficult but if an employee has a health issue which limits their ability to do the essential functions of the job, it's never a slam dunk.

No intent to shut down conversation, just trying to bring another POV into the mix. Best wishes to everyone involved.

[ingelein]

Sadly, I do believe you are right on point here.