ACLU Files Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit on Behalf of Police Officer in Illinois
Lawsuit is One of Several Similar Cases Nationwide Filed on Behalf of Women in Law Enforcement
FRANKFORT, Ill. — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit this week on behalf of a police officer who was subjected to discrimination and retaliation because of her pregnancy, ultimately forcing her off the job for seven months without a paycheck. The lawsuit is one of several ACLU cases nationwide representing female police officers who have faced similar barriers due to pregnancy and breastfeeding.
Officer Jennifer Panattoni has served the Frankfort Police Department (FPD) and her community with distinction for more than 14 years. She is an award-winning senior patrol officer, one of just three female officers in the department, and the only woman who currently works full-time patrol shifts. Her husband is a sergeant in the FPD.
“I have always wanted to be a police officer since I was a young girl. When I wake up and put on my uniform, I feel so honored to serve, but I have been punished for choosing to be a mom. I’m fighting back so that no other woman is put in this situation,” said Officer Panattoni.
When Officer Panattoni became pregnant in 2015, she asked to modify her job duties so that she could safely work through her pregnancy. She identified numerous non-patrol work duties that she could perform, such as taking walk-in complaints, conducting witness interviews, writing reports, and helping with crime prevention outreach. However, the FPD refused, claiming only officers with on-the-job injuries were entitled to “light duty.”
At the same time, FPD also made it impossible for Officer Panattoni to continue working safely on patrol. It refused to provide her with uniforms and protective gear that would fit her changing body, including a properly-sized bullet proof vest, and it denied her requests to carry some of her equipment in her pockets and vest to lessen the strain on her abdomen caused by her 25-pound duty belt.
“As my pregnancy progressed, I had to worry about whether I could still button my uniform or whether my bulletproof vest would pop open in the middle of my patrol shift. Being denied the equipment I needed took my mind out of where it should have been to keep myself and others safe, and made it harder to do my job,” said Officer Panattoni.
“It’s been nearly 40 years since Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and more than two years since the Supreme Court affirmed pregnant workers’ right to on-the-job accommodation, yet stories like Officer Panattoni’s remain commonplace,” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project.” Particularly in historically male-dominated jobs like policing, employers are stuck in a time warp, treating pregnancy like a problem, rather than simply a fact of life.”
FPD ultimately forced Officer Panattoni off the job and onto unpaid leave when she was 5 months pregnant. In order to have any income while out of work, she exhausted her paid benefit time — which she had planned to use while recovering from having her baby — and drew down her pension, receiving just half of her usual salary. Since Officer Panattoni’s return to work in October 2016, the FPD has retaliated against her for challenging its illegal treatment by singling her out for disparate treatment, ranging from threats of unwarranted discipline to denials of the equipment she needed to do her job.
Officer Jennifer Panattoni alleges that in refusing to temporarily modify her job duties so that she could continue working through her pregnancy, the Village of Frankfort violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act.
The ACLU has a track record of successfully representing pregnant law enforcement officers in similar cases, including winning a federal jury verdict against the Suffolk County, New York, police department in 2006, which had a policy like FPD’s, and obtaining a settlement in 2013 of its complaint against the Wallingford, Connecticut police department on behalf of officer Annie Balcastro, whom the department also denied a “light duty” assignment while she was pregnant.
The ACLU also recently filed a pregnancy discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a female police officer in Cromwell, Connecticut, who was forced onto unpaid leave in her fifth month. It also filed a “friend of the court” brief in the appeal of a jury verdict in favor of a Tuscaloosa, Alabama police officer who was forced out of work for breastfeeding upon her return from maternity leave.
In that case, Hicks v Tuscaloosa, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a landmark ruling affirming the jury’s decision, finding that liability for pregnancy discrimination does not end simply because a woman is no longer pregnant.
Federal law requires that pregnant workers receive the same benefits, including policies offering temporary “light duty,” as non-pregnant colleagues who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” In its 2015 decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified that those rights apply regardless of how those colleagues came to need light duty — that is, whether or not they were injured on the job. Young reaffirmed that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s mission — assuring pregnancy does not cost women their jobs — obligates employers to treat pregnant workers equally.
The complaint can found here:
/legal-document/panattoni-v-village-frankfort-complaint
More information about the case can be found here:
/cases/panattoni-v-village-frankfort
Women's Rights
Panattoni v. Village of Frankfort
Women's Rights
Panattoni v. Village of Frankfort
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090