Pregnant Cop Denied Desk Duty

Practically, it doesn't make sense to have an 8 month pregnant cop out on the street, "Stop or I'll...oh..uh...my water just broke...."

But should pregnancy be treated as a disability? This woman made a choice either to have this child or keep this child. Disability status is not based on choice. Feminist arguments become less credible for me when biology excuses agency.

Wed, 05/07/2008 - 17:34

Carlin Ross

Pregnancy isn't a disability. I referenced "disability" because male cops who have a physical limitation are given desk duty no questions asked. However, a woman who makes a choice to be a mother which is the only way the human race continues as a species is given no option.

They're not examining why a male cop has become disabled. Maybe he fell off a ladder painting his house, had a heart attack, or got hurt in the line of duty....he isn't questioned at all. He can't perform the job physically and he gets a desk job.

The reason why she can't perform her physical duties is irrelevant - whether she's pregnant or pulled a muscle she can't perform her duties and should be given a desk job NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

It's about her safety and the safety of the public.

Wed, 05/07/2008 - 23:19

c-bitch;11743 wrote:

It's about her safety and the safety of the public.

That right there is the main argument for giving her a desk job as far as I'm concerned. Is it a disability? Of course not. But she is incapable of performing her regular duties, and as such should be behind a desk instead of walking the beat.

Thu, 05/08/2008 - 05:39

She's only TWO months pregnant. She's not even showing. This is not currently a case about her ability to perform the job, it's about her willingness to perform the job. If there are no desk jobs available for her to take right now, then what is the chief supposed to do?

Unfortunately, when stuff like this hits the media, I think women's rights take a step backwards, as employers are more hesitant to hire any women who might eventually get pregnant and become unable (or unwilling) to perform their job functions. I know it's discriminatory but it's a tight job market.

This makes me think of my company, which has special close-to-the-door parking spaces marked for "expectant mothers". I've done the whole pregnancy and childbirth thing and am not sure why anyone thinks that women can't or shouldn't be walking a few extra hundred yards because they're pregnant. It's very important to keep the body healthy during pregnancy, including mild exercise like walking. Does stuff like this encourage women to consider themselves invalids when they're with child? Granted, maybe a woman who's 8 months pregnant in the middle of a hot summer doesn't want to be wearing 4" stilettos like she did the previous summer, but to claim she can't walk at all is kind of silly. It makes me shake my head especially when women who are two months along and look no different than before they were pregnant park in these prime spots. Silly.

Fri, 05/09/2008 - 00:24

mssaigon73

Here is my take on this topic. Yes she is only two months pregnant. Being pregnant is risky.A normal healthy woman can loose her child in a heart beat, in a non stressful situation. Now put a woman in a high stress job that is high risk for injury....add to the mix pregnancy. It is not good for the pregnant woman or baby. When I was six months pregnant with my son I contracted chicken pox from the day care center that i worked at.There is a risk at anyjob when you are pregnant.Her job is tough. She risk her life everyday..... no pregnancy is not a disability.But most jobs offer light duty or desk duty to pregnant women if neccessary. I got hurt at work and becasue they didn't want my out on disability they offered me a desk job. They do it when it is convient to them. I bet you those guys that are on desk duty a good percentage are milking it.Because they don't want to go back to regular duty. As her belly grows she will be more incapable of doing her duties as an officer. And it is unfair of the job to ask her to use her sick and vacation time because of her condition....what about those guys on desk duty???Why don't they use there sick and vacation if they can't seem to go back on regular duty??? Its a double standard if you ask me. :mad:

Fri, 05/09/2008 - 16:35

mssaigon73-the double standard, from my perspective, is when the choice to get pregnant is treated not as that, a choice.

If I chose to walk around my office carrying a chimpanzee on my back, feeding and generally taking care of it, I would expect that choice to have consequences (work role changes, physical effects from carrying the weight, a higher dry cleaning bill) and those around me would have to choose how to react to this new situation. If my boss makes me work differently now that I am "with chimp", that is a consequence of my choice.

I am all for a more realistic approach to pregnancy and child-rearing in the workplace. It is long overdue. But I'll say it again, every time biology is used to excuse agency it doesn't help us find a sense of equality between the sexes.

Fri, 05/09/2008 - 18:13

eleni223

Avid...the difference is pregnancy allows us to continue mankind, unlike a chimp, and, even though pregnancy is usually a joint decision between a man and woman, it is the woman who pays the price in her career.

Fri, 05/09/2008 - 21:29

I am more than willing to concede that continuing mankind is different than carrying around a chimp. Although let's not underestamate the importance of carrying a chimp around ;-)

Fri, 05/09/2008 - 21:50

kayten;11747 wrote:

This makes me think of my company, which has special close-to-the-door parking spaces marked for "expectant mothers".

My wife and I have seen these at malls near our parents' houses. They drive her crazy. This just doesn't seem like progress to me. It seems like the priority is off here. Give up on equal pay for a shorter trip to the store's entrance.

Fri, 05/09/2008 - 22:42

avid;11759 wrote:

My wife and I have seen these at malls near our parents' houses. They drive her crazy. This just doesn't seem like progress to me. It seems like the priority is off here. Give up on equal pay for a shorter trip to the store's entrance.

Or, as the comedian Carlos Mencia put it: Women don't want equality. They want the same jobs as a man, and the same pay as a man, they want the same rights as a man, but they still want to be treated specially. Men can't walk around the work place making obscene comments, telling dirty jokes, discussing sexual conquests or wanna be conquests and things like that. If they do, they face charges of creating a hostile workplace, and would be scheduled very quickly for sensitivity training. The point that Carlos Mencia makes about all of this is that what has happened is not equality, but instead a form of politically correct special treatment. Equality would mean that the work place wouldn't grant special treatment for any class of individual, and wouldn't demand sensitivity for any class of individual. Equality would only mean equal pay for equal work.

(Most of that was ripped from a brief review about the act in which Carlos Mencia focused on equality.)

Fri, 05/09/2008 - 23:31

I agree with avid and cuntlicker in this argument. Since I've been down the path I feel I have more of a right to voice my opinion than if I had never been pregnant or had a child. But yes, women are making choices here and expecting the rest of the world to part the seas to their choice. Did the cop ever anticipate becoming pregnant when she chose her profession? Did she just assume they would give her anything she wanted because she was bringing yet another life into this world? Woo hoo - most women do it at some point but it shouldn't affect everyone else, especially professionally. I rode the bus - sometimes standing up because men got seats before I got on - every day at 8 months pregnant. I was returning office voicemail hours after my c-section. Yes, the pregnancy was a choice that I made, but being a career professional and a considerate human being who earns her own respect are also my choices.

If we lived in a world where only 5% of women were able to give birth to live babies I could perhaps see the expectation that others take steps to protect the rarity of the event. But frankly, the human race is in NO DANGER of dying out if a few million more women choose not to "continue mankind." The thing is, miscarriages and birth defects happen for thousands of reasons, many which are unable to be foreseen, but people always want to blame it on something specific, so people hedge their bets and say that "oh, it was the long walk from the parking lot" instead of "maybe there was a chromosomal abnormality."

I guess I'm just tired of women getting the message that they can do anything they want with no ramifications. There are ALWAYS ramifications. You cannot be a supermother and career whiz and give your husband a blow job twice a day and bake muffins from scratch for the bake sale and go shoe shopping with your girlfriends without losing your mind. I applaud a woman who wants to be a cop and a mother, but she also has to accept that she may have to take sick and/or vacation time in order to make that choice. I don't see this as any different as me choosing to get plastic surgery and demanding my company give me a job from which I can telecommute just for my own comfort and convenience. They hired someone who indicated she could do the job as described, and they expect her to do it regardless of what she wants to do in her personal life. I completely get it.

Sat, 05/10/2008 - 06:42

eleni223

Well, I've never been pregnant (at least not full term), but I still feel I have the right to voice my opinion.
I agree with the parking situations, ridicules, I've never seen this anywhere I've been.
I agree that if a woman wants to be considered an equal, then you pay the price that the equality brings.

BUT...this is a unique situation, there has never been a male cop who got pregnant to compare this too, only disabled cops, so I don't think she is saying pregnancy should be compared to disability, but rather, disability for men is the only thing she has to compare it to.

And to say that you shouldn't take a job based on the fact that you might not be able to perform it should you get pregnant is crazy....So no women of childbearing age should be cops, fireman, divers...basically, any job that demands top physical condition should be ruled out if you ever plan on having a child?

I guess I totally don't get it.

Sat, 05/10/2008 - 07:36

eleni223;11762 wrote:

And to say that you shouldn't take a job based on the fact that you might not be able to perform it should you get pregnant is crazy....So no women of childbearing age should be cops, fireman, divers...basically, any job that demands top physical condition should be ruled out if you ever plan on having a child?

No, women should still continue to work where ever they want. Woman cop? Awesome. Woman combat solider? Great. And there is absolutely no reason why a man and a woman should not be making equal pay for the same work.

The issue here is the expectation on the side of pregnant women for the world around them to see their pregnancy as an unmitigated bundle of joy, who's kid will only be good and grow up to cure cancer, as opposed to just another being on an already crowded planet( A billion more people. Whoo hoo!). Or mothers expecting everyone to be cool with them breast feeding in public, but of course not leer when they whip out their boob at a table in a restaurant. Its seems like fighting for the right to publicly lactate while you are not bringing home the same pay for the same work, whatever work that is, as a man is a confusion of priorities.

Sat, 05/10/2008 - 08:31

eleni223;11762 wrote:

And to say that you shouldn't take a job based on the fact that you might not be able to perform it should you get pregnant is crazy....So no women of childbearing age should be cops, fireman, divers...basically, any job that demands top physical condition should be ruled out if you ever plan on having a child?

I did not say that a woman of childbearing age should not take a job which requires top physical condition, only that she understand the ramifications of it. Childbirth is a temporary disability regardless of its duration, but it is a chosen one.

Let's take a non-cop analogy. A single woman is a waitress in a diner and gets pregnant; although she does not have a steady partner, she always wanted to have a baby and is happy about the circumstance. Ideally she should be able to continue to work waiting tables until close to her due date. She develops complications at four months and her doctor considers putting her on bed rest, but then says if she can find a job where she is just sitting all day rather than on her feet, she should try that first - since she won't get paid if she's not working. There is ONE job at the diner that fits the bill - the cashier, which is currently filled by an elderly woman who uses a cane and had worked at the diner her whole life, but who doesn't really need the money as much as it being an important element of her day socially. Perhaps the waitress thinks that her situation is more important and the elderly cashier should retire or at least take a leave of absence until the waitress has her baby. Does her being pregnant give her the right to usurp someone else's job? She certainly had to know when she made the choice to carry the baby that it might not go exactly the way she had planned it, and also that she could not earn money at her chosen profession if she was not working. What about that situation?

The fact is, at some point everyone who has a baby becomes temporarily disabled from work, whether it is on the due date and two days afterwards or for a longer duration. Even the primitive story of taking a break working in the fields to give birth and then go right back means the woman is not working for a few hours. We are fortunate to have the FMLA which guarantees us a specific leave of absence without losing our jobs or benefits, although we MIGHT NOT get paid for that time period, depending on the employer. But we have to accept that the pregnancy may not go according to our happy little plan - a leave of absence might be longer than twelve weeks depending on the complications of the pregnancy. Or your job may be to answer 911 calls but your extreme nausea has you vomiting so much for weeks at a time that you can't pick up the phone. Or your job may be to organize the company's annual meeting across the world but your doctor doesn't want you getting on a plane in your third trimester. The fact is, just because many employers value their employees to the extent that they are willing to work with them through the pregnancy situation as best as they can does NOT MEAN THEY HAVE TO. In most cases, the employer still needs an employee to perform the job function like answering 911 calls or organizing the annual meeting or waiting tables or walking a beat as a cop ... BUT they are also still required to keep you on as an employee for 12 weeks and pay your benefits share.

All I'm saying is that while technology and forward thinking has allowed a lot of women, especially professional women in white collar jobs, to contribute almost 100% throughout their pregnancies with the support of the employer, no one should ever develop the expectation that they deserve the rules bent because of a planned temporary disability. I think this story about the cop is noteworthy only for its rarity ... consider the many women who have been in this situation in other police stations and been able to transition their jobs to desk jobs although the chief likely wasn't required to do that for them. As long as we demand that pregnancy stay our choice to make, we have to accept that there may be consequences for that choice, even as we hope for the best.

Sat, 05/10/2008 - 16:19

mssaigon73

eleni223;11757 wrote:

Avid...the difference is pregnancy allows us to continue mankind, unlike a chimp, and, even though pregnancy is usually a joint decision between a man and woman, it is the woman who pays the price in her career.

I agree with your statement Eleni223. We procreate to ensure our race. And it is true the woman pays the price in her career when she is pregnant. I see alot of pregnant woman at my job( i work in a hospital). And some act like they are the only pregnant woman in the world and expect special treatment, while other nurses do their jobs with no questions asked. But even at my job there are some aspect to it that are a risk to the mother and unborn child. For instance anything to do with radiology or chemo therapy.Even lifting or pulling a patient can be dangerous for a pregnant woman. But I know alot of them who make it through their pregnancy working til the end. And others aren't so lucky....they end up delivering early or out on medical leave sooner than expected. Imagine a pregnant police officer trying to run down a suspect at the second and third trimester??? Or better yet in a shoot out? You know the suspect is going to aim for her belly!
I do think it is silly seeing those parking spaces for pregnant or mothers with small children. I was very active during my pregnancy.I even moved furniture. :D But I was also 23 at the time and I was healthy.Now Being 35 and having had spinal surgery and degenerated disks in my lower spine.....I don't know what I will be able to do or feel like when I actually do get pregnant again. Even though I am a healthy and still excersise regularly....I will still have risks.My job is physical I can ended up moving 300 plus pound patients.... even with help of others it still will be strenuous.But it will be my choice to stay at my job until delivery or go on light duty.This officer should have that choice as well.

Sat, 05/10/2008 - 23:24

mssaigon73;11765 wrote:

Imagine a pregnant police officer trying to run down a suspect at the second and third trimester??? Or better yet in a shoot out? You know the suspect is going to aim for her belly!

First of all, shoot outs are RARE. It's not an exaggeration when they say most cops go their entire career without ever having to fire their gun. Second, if she was in a shoot out, why would a suspect aim for her belly? I mean, for starters, police are trained to use cover, so they expose the bare minimum in the unlikely event of a firefight. And besides that, other than the pure crazies and lowest of the lowest of degenerates, why would a criminal aim to kill a police officer's unborn child, rather than just to kill the police officer? That doesn't make any sense, and seems to me to smack of sensationalism rather than any solid facts or sense.

And thirdly... We aren't talking about the second or third trimester here. We're talking about 2 months pregnant, and barely showing, if at all.

Sun, 05/11/2008 - 09:54

Carlin Ross

here's how the issue breaks down for me:

If a male cop pulls a groin muscles after choosing to play softball in the police league, then he is given desk duty.

If a female cop gets pregnant (and this is often not her choice) and decides to keep it, then she must take vacation time with no pay.

I don't think women want more rights then men. We want equal rights. And the only thing that is different for women with respect to their life experience is pregnancy. So when it comes to pregnancy and the physical limitations imposed on our bodies for 8-9 months we need to afford women the ability to maintain their employment and their pregnancy. It takes a village....

And fyi the Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1923, approved by Congress in 1980, but NEVER RATIFIED. We are NOT guaranteed equal rights under our existing laws.

Sun, 05/11/2008 - 10:22

Yes, but it was my impression from watching the story that the issue was that NO DESK DUTY JOB WAS AVAILABLE FOR HER. In that case, what is supposed to happen? They're supposed to can a male cop? Hence my analogy to the waitress. I highly doubt that if a male cop injured himself whether on the job or not and there was no desk duty job available for him, they would fire someone or create a job just for him.

I agree with your ideals, but UNTIL THEY EXIST we need to be prepared to operate in the world as it is.

Sun, 05/11/2008 - 14:14

CB, I agree that there are plenty of pregnancies that are not started by choice, but they are continued by choice.

You make the point I am trying to make. The ERA is still not ratified, but focus is on whether pregnant women should get closer parking spots or mothers should be allowed to breast feed in public.

Sun, 05/11/2008 - 19:14

mssaigon73

CL.... I understand your point.But I was just making a comment.And yes the dirtiest scum bag will shoot and fight dirty.Is is sensationalism??Maybe...maybe not.People are deviant.Who knows what is going on in their sick minds? Shootouts are rare and yes I know officers who never even shot their guns at anyone.
If the officer is having a problem getting desk duty at two months you seriously think she'll get it in the last trimester??? They tell her to take early medical leave.
Now any job if a person is put on light duty,they should reassess each person. to see if they can go back to full duty with in a respectable amount of time. My job does it.So should the police department. I know a guy who went out on early retirement because of a torn ACL in his knee.He was 36. He makes 3/4 of his pay.Even my uncle retired after breaking his toe. Desk duty should be a temporary solution. And sometimes to these men it is a permanent one when they don't want to go back to their regular position.
I agree with CB.Its about equal rights on the job force. We are still backwards in that sense.

Sun, 05/11/2008 - 22:11