Pregnant Cop’s Discrimination Case Highlights Law

by Categorized: Labor, law Date:

Pregnant women are among the people protected by state and federal anti-discrimination laws, and one of the key rules says employers must make a reasonable effort to find suitable work for women whose pregnancy keeps them from their normal line of duty.

A case involving the Wallingford Police Department reached a settlement Friday, and it highlights that rule — specifically, what exactly is a reasonable effort? Officer Annie Balcastro charged that the police chief and the town gave her no choice but to take an unpaid leave in January of 2012, after she became pregnant and was unable to work on regular patrol.

The ACLU of Connecticut, which was part of the case on behalf of Annie Balcastro, says the case is a rare reminder that employers — public sector or private — must heed the law. Rare, because there are not a lot of cases in which that particular rule is at issue.

Lawyers for Wallingford say the case illustrates no such thing, because they followed the rule — but settled for $20,000 to avert costly litigation.

Either way, the case, which was launched as a complaint to the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, is a good window into the law. Balcastro sought work that would accommodate her  inability to, for example, apprehend and handcuff a suspect. Police Chief Douglas Dortenzio, however, runs a department that has no so-called light-duty work, as a matter of policy.  So he rejected options that included desk work and community policing assignments that many departments have.

“We have a policy that if you can’t perform the essential aspects of the job, there is no job for you in law enforcement,” said attorney Michael Rose of Rose Kallor LLP in Hartford, who represented the town. “We can’t make exceptions…we’re not going to go down that slippery slope, and I can tell you there are dozens of departments in this state who do that and they have officers who are making six figures and couldn’t make an arrest if their lives depended on it.”

That’s not okay when it comes to discrimination issues, said Sandra Staub, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Connecticut, especially since a sergeant supported the idea of community policing for Balcastro.

“Our contention is that you can’t reconcile ‘no light duty’ with the requirement under the law that you accommodate a pregnant woman,” Staub said. “If the answer is already no, then there was by definition no reasonable effort.”

You might say the town should have offered Balcastro temporary work in a municipal office somewhere. That’s where the facts become muddy in this case. The town said it did make an offer, which she turned down.  Staub said what happened was that Balcastro went to the town after a month of her leave, and asked for something — only to have town officials offer work she wasn’t qualified for, then drag their feet until she was fully disabled due to her pregnancy.

Balcastro, who Rose said was “a good officer and a good person,” gave birth in August. She later resigned from the force to remain with her baby, Staub said.

It’s unfortunate, in a way, that the dispute became muddy on the facts, and that it settled.  Only a few dozen cases involving the rights of pregnant women come before CHRO each year, spokesman Jim O’Neill said, and virtually all are settled. It’s easy to see why, as the town of Wallingford and its insurer in this case would have been nuts to risk hundreds of thousands of dollars when it could walk away for a mere $20,000.

At some point it would be important to have a court decision on that core question: Should a public safety agency have to offer light-duty work to a pregnant woman or otherwise protected person who becomes disabled, even if that agency doesn’t have any light-duty jobs as a matter of policy?

I might side with the taxpayers on that one, but in this case there was an easy answer — a job in a non-police office for Balcastro, offered quickly.


The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

9 thoughts on “Pregnant Cop’s Discrimination Case Highlights Law

  1. p hofperson

    there are so many jobs in any police department that could easily be handled by anyone not able to be on the street. this is the most biased situation I have ever heard of. if a male was disabled in some way I’m sure they would find a place for him. I would be ashamed to be part of this community that has this type of policy in one of their departments.

      1. p hofperson

        so who does all the paper work, computer work, filing, answering calls? if you’re only a fine “man” department, she wouldn’t have been part of your department in the first place. get over your macho crap and realize that women are here to stay.

        1. Chien DeBerger

          My department have women who choose to have female partners! Civilians fill the non sworn duties you mope!

  2. Mike

    Mr. Rose might want to temper his comments. There are many lawyers making six-figures who are just plain incompetent. The profession went down that slippery-slope a long time ago.

    Pregnancy is not a disability; it’s a temporary condition of well defined duration. Chief Dortenzio is well known for his tyrannical approach to leadership. There is absolutely no legitimate management reason why a pregnant police officer cannot be reasonably accommodated with inside work. Many police departments smaller than Wallingford’s routinely make such accommodations.

    This issue is ripe for in-depth journalistic investigation. How much did it cost to train this officer only to have her quit. I’m willing to bet her new status as a mother was not the only reason she chose to leave the force. It’s never good for one’s career to sue one’s boss.

  3. Bob

    I guarantee you the police chief’s attitude toward no light duty costs the town plenty when it comes to workers compensation. Not taking people back with restrictions, especially police, is very expensive. The town’s insurer is responsible for paying the statutory rate, which comes out to roughly 2/3 of gross pay. Almost every town in the state, Wallingford included, makes up the difference. Refusing to take workers back with restrictions costs towns incredible amounts of money. Years ago, I watched a police chief argue with the town’s insurer about their lack of a light duty program. The police chief was arguing that he needed his people to be fully fit for duty. The claims guy from the insurer asked about the booking desk. Why couldn’t light duty people handle that. What if a suspect got out of his handcuffs and attacked, the police chief asked? What would an officer with the restriction be able to do. The claims guy stared at him, and said “He’s got a gun, doesn’t he? Shoot the son of a bitch”.

    1. Wawogi

      This has nothing to do with workers’ compensation. It has to do with a disability having nothing to do with being injured in the line of duty. And if a male officer became temporarily disabled due to, for instance, an injury suffered during an off-duty sporting event, he would be subject to the same policy.

  4. Wawogi

    While I cannot recall the name of the case, I heard recently about a court decision involving the same type of situation as here. And the decision was in favor of the police department. As long as a policy is applied to everyone, male or female, equally, what’s the problem?

Comments are closed.