My friend is currently three months pregnant, but our employer is making her drive forklifts for expediting purposes. They're not skimping on the safety issue, but the smell of the hydraulics bothers her, and all our supervisor says is "just be careful." We were under the impression that it's illegal to have her on equipment period, but they don't answer any inquiries and I can't find any specific law on the matter. Can you help?

We were under the impression that it's illegal to have her on equipment period

Where did you get that idea?

The truth is quite the opposite. The employer is required to treat her the same as if she were not pregnant. If they would not take a non-pregnant employee of the equipment, they need not take her off. In fact, it would be illegal for them to change her job because of her pregnancy.

Well, the thing is this isn't her normal job. She normally has a "desk job" but since they fired a regular expeditor they put her on it as opposed to other people that could have done the job. My concern was that if she were to crash or be crashed into, couldn't that cause potential injury to the baby? I understand that, given the environment, she'd be in danger one way or the other but why put her in a position where the risk is that much higher?
My thinking is that the possibility of lawsuits if she were to have some kind of accident on the forklift somehow and loose the baby (she's already medically "fragile" from pre-existing conditions) would be enough for the company to take the extra precautions to keep her from substituting a job that other people can do.

The point is though that the law precludes the employer from treating someone differently because they are pregnant, even if it is "for their own good". Any employee involved in a work related crash would carry liability. Pulling her off this duty and putting someone else on would be opening the gates for a lawsuit for pregnancy discrimination.

My friend is currently three months pregnant, but our employer is making her drive forklifts for expediting purposes. They're not skimping on the safety issue, but the smell of the hydraulics bothers her, and all our supervisor says is "just be careful." We were under the impression that it's illegal to have her on equipment period, but they don't answer any inquiries and I can't find any specific law on the matter. Can you help?

She is entitled to transfer to a less strenuous or hazardous position if it is medically advisable. She is also entitled to a reasonable accommodation with the advice of her doctor. She should consult her doctor and see if he/she will advise a transfer or accommodation.

We were under the impression that it's illegal to have her on equipment period

Where did you get that idea?

The truth is quite the opposite. The employer is required to treat her the same as if she were not pregnant. If they would not take a non-pregnant employee of the equipment, they need not take her off. In fact, it would be illegal for them to change her job because of her pregnancy.

It would be illegal to change her job because of her pregnancy? Really? Because I believe they would be required to change her job if medically advisable.

When the poster brings back some information to suggest that it is medically inadvisable instead of just something she doesn't want to do, we can revisit the situation. Until then, the employer may not use pregnancy as a reason to change jobs. Read the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

When the poster brings back some information to suggest that it is medically inadvisable instead of just something she doesn't want to do, we can revisit the situation. Until then, the employer may not use pregnancy as a reason to change jobs. Read the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The PDA has little relevance in CA because the state law is generally more protective. Your "advice" completely dismissed the possibility that she may be entitled to an accommodation and/or transfer. And your blanket statement that it would be illegal to change her job because of her pregnancy is not only untrue, but completely ignores an entire facet of pregnancy discrimination law. The fact that she stated the smell of the hydraulics bothered her should have clued you into the fact that she may want to consult her doctor about an accommodation.

The smell of hydraulics bothers a lot of people, including those who are not pregnant. That is not, in itself, enough to automatically qualify her for transfer.

If she thinks she is entitled to a transfer or accomodation for medical reasons, she should be talking to her doctor, not complaining to a friend who in turn contacts a message board.

If she thinks she is entitled to a transfer or accomodation for medical reasons, she should be talking to her doctor, not complaining to a friend who in turn contacts a message board.

You're right...she did come to a message board so I guess she can't expect anything more than your subpar advice.

Fear of an accident isn't a medical accommodation. The OP seems to be implying that the employer should just automatically pull her from the job and give it to someone else based on the fact that she is pregnant. That is the very reason anti-discrimination laws were passed in the first place. Most women have virtually no medical restrictions in the first trimester. Even if they do, they need to provide documentation from a doctor as to what those restrictions area and what accommodations may be needed. Odors bothering someone would not necessarily translate into a medical need for them to avoid that task. There is a huge discrepency between being medically incapable of performing a job because of the fumes and it just being unpleasant. For the employer to assume that the employee can not do the job without any kind of medical documentation to substantiate it very much puts them in jeopardy no matter what state they live in. CA may have some of its own laws but it still must comply with federal ones as well. Yanking a pregnant employee off a job task because she is pregnant violates federal law.

Fear of an accident isn't a medical accommodation. The OP seems to be implying that the employer should just automatically pull her from the job and give it to someone else based on the fact that she is pregnant. That is the very reason anti-discrimination laws were passed in the first place. Most women have virtually no medical restrictions in the first trimester. Even if they do, they need to provide documentation from a doctor as to what those restrictions area and what accommodations may be needed. Odors bothering someone would not necessarily translate into a medical need for them to avoid that task. There is a huge discrepency between being medically incapable of performing a job because of the fumes and it just being unpleasant. For the employer to assume that the employee can not do the job without any kind of medical documentation to substantiate it very much puts them in jeopardy no matter what state they live in. CA may have some of its own laws but it still must comply with federal ones as well. Yanking a pregnant employee off a job task because she is pregnant violates federal law.

I don't disagree per se. However, cbg's post seemed to completely overlook the fact that she may be entitled to an accommodation or transfer. I bet there are many doctors that would write a request for accommodation for their patients, even if it were just for fumes. You're just assuming that unpleasant fumes do not warrant an accommodation. It may, may not. The point is, the initial "advice" was incomplete.

A common problem when friends post on behalf of someone else and are vague on the details.

It's ok.The advice from everyone was incomplete, as Endevor said. We found out that there are laws preventing her from driving some equipment - particularly an order picker (because of issues with the harness should she fall) and our Safety and security supervisor stated that he had some concerns but was unable to act on them because a few managers had advised against it. But she can and did get an accomodation for it because, not only can the fumes be too much (it ended up causing her to vomit, the smell was so bad for her) but the doctor was concerned after she explained that the steering joystick was positioned in the direction of her abdomen, meaning that any sudden brakes, let alone crashes, would cause injury to the baby. And the safety and security supervisor seemed certain that she'd have every right to sue.

As for me posting on her behalf, maybe the fact that she didn't have an account here (and I did) might have keep her from telling you herself. And if there was something you felt I had left out, ask next time instead of making it out to seem like I'm trying to waste your time. If you don't want to give me advice, maybe there's someone else on this message board who is more deserving.