Current Events > Amazon Denied a Worker Pregnancy Accommodations. Then She Miscarried.

(+) Yeah! (+)

eston posted...

I wasn't aware they could deny that sort of thing

They can't. There are laws for that sort of thing.

---

Cleo_II posted...

Thats so tragic. I really hope they sue the shit out of them.

They do all the time. My doctor also submitted a note for me for reduced hours near the end of my pregnancy. But he fully said he would expect pushback because it happens all the time and said some companies look for ways of firing employees after they submit that. I opted not to send it since I work from home and was able to phone it in enough.

Also california pregnancy disability leave allows you to leave 4 weeks from your due date but I had to battle my insurance to pay for it. They required a ton of documentation from my doctor. Initially denied it but then I got additional paperwork from my pain care doctor that outlined a history of treatment. It took weeks to get it approved. They make you jump through so many hoops.

That sucks! :(

---

Turtlemayor333 posted...

muh pro life

Conservatives care more about the well being of the rich than anything else

---

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

The moment she was told by her manager that they were not going to listen to her doctors order she should have quit immediately on the spot. Clearly they did not care so her decision should have been to value her doctors orders and the baby over the shitty job and sue them before now for failing to heed the doctors orders.

Unless she had another job lined up, that's easier said then done.

---

Lil_Bit83 posted...

They can't. There are laws for that sort of thing.

From the article:

Under federal law, it is often legal for companies, including Amazon, to deny pregnant workers lighter duty. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 says that an employer has to accommodate pregnant employees only if it is already doing so for other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

If she had family members you do all you can to save the baby over caring about bills as family is suppose to help when your in a really bad situation. Her doctor should have been the first stop to inform what was happening and where she can go for emergency help, housing, etc.

She had cousins working there, live with them in the short term, whatever it takes to keep that baby alive.

Hell I did not go in to work when my pet was sick, and my parent was in the hospital, did I get fired ? yes but I gave zero fucks because my family came first. The pets are still alive, my parent is healthy again, and I got a better job. Never sacrifice for a job when shit that matters more is at stake.

Oh shut up. How pathetic you are to put blame on the victim,instead of blame on the company that can't be bothered to follow mandated laws.

---

Sounds like a 50/50 blame.
The warehouse supervisor for denying her the accommodations and she for staying there.

---

Flamer_Blue posted...

Sounds like a 50/50 blame.
The warehouse supervisor for denying her the accommodations and she for staying there.

"the pregnant lady should have chosen to stop working, and raise the baby while homeless"

Flamer_Blue posted...

Sounds like a 50/50 blame.
The warehouse supervisor for denying her the accommodations and she for staying there.

LateStageCapitalism.jpg

---

@Lil_Bit83

Look at the post before that one, I do blame the company, I also said if the company was not following doctor orders her immediate choice should be to quit and go back to the doctor to get help, where emergency shelters are, etc.

The company is to blame, but she should also have stopped working there if they refused to lighten her work load. This is not the first time amazon has gotten babies killed and sadly she lost her child due to all the stress and strain on her body it sounds like.

---

Aren't you unable to collect unemployment if you quit a job?

---

I just got a YouTube ad where Amazon is boasting of how they help expectant mothers.

-_-

Under federal law, it is often legal for companies, including Amazon, to deny pregnant workers lighter duty. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 says that an employer has to accommodate pregnant employees only if it is already doing so for other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."

So yeah, they just deny them all accommodations to stay legal.

I'm sure Amazon has looked at this from every angle since they've already had multiple lawsuits. Doesn't matter how morally wrong it is if they can stay out of trouble and keep pumping out those packages.

---

A lawsuit is waiting to be filed, cancel Amazon and put them out of business

That sucks but this could just as easily happened without Amazon

---

FortuneCookie posted...

I just got a YouTube ad where Amazon is boasting of how they help expectant mothers.

-_-

I saw one with an employee talking about how they could "go to the bathroom anytime" in the middle of the piss jar stories coming out.

I half expected her to elaborate lol, like "The Sonic cup is for #1, the empty Mcdonald's bag is for #2"

sabrestorm posted...

A lawsuit is waiting to be filed, cancel Amazon and put them out of business

Nothing will come out of it. Besides, it is her fault for still working there.

---

Fam_Fam posted...

"the pregnant lady should have chosen to stop working, and raise the baby while homeless"

It is not Amazon's fault that she didn't plan her life accordingly.
Especially if she was already denied accomodations, common sense would have told you to stop working, have your baby, then sue.

---

nobody feed the troll

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

If there's no "light duty" work in the warehouse, there's not a lot of options.

There is always light duty work to be done in warehouses.

---

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

If she had family members you do all you can to save the baby over caring about bills as family is suppose to help when your in a really bad situation. Her doctor should have been the first stop to inform what was happening and where she can go for emergency help, housing, etc.

She had cousins working there, live with them in the short term, whatever it takes to keep that baby alive.

Hell I did not go in to work when my pet was sick, and my parent was in the hospital, did I get fired ? yes but I gave zero fucks because my family came first. The pets are still alive, my parent is healthy again, and I got a better job. Never sacrifice for a job when shit that matters more is at stake.

It isn't always that simple for people. Desperation can drive people to make decisions they wouldn't otherwise make.

---

Meanwhile Jeff bezos donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the media

just a small indie multi-dollar company that cant support its workers

FortuneCookie posted...

I just got a YouTube ad where Amazon is boasting of how they help expectant mothers.

-_-

Likely not a coincidence. They knew this story was going to break so they jumped a head of the curve on it.

---

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Meanwhile Jeff bezos donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the media

just a small indie multi-dollar company that cant support its workers

So it is Jeff Bezos' fault that she had poor judgement?


---

Flamer_Blue posted...

So it is Jeff Bezos' fault that she had poor judgement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRB-iHGHSqk

---

MC_BatCommander posted...

That sounds incredibly illegal

It very likely is, and hopefully she sues Amazon for as much as she possibly can.

---

As someone whos wife had a miscarriage at 5 weeks and 10 weeks. Her doctors said miscarriages in the first trimester are significantly higher by a large margin.

if she can prove Amazon caused her to directly have a miscarriage sue them, but its going to be insanely hard to prove when miscarriages happen so frequently for mainly little to no outside reason.

---

Flamer_Blue posted...

It is not Amazon's fault that she didn't plan her life accordingly.
Especially if she was already denied accomodations, common sense would have told you to stop working, have your baby, then sue.

how *reads next post*

Zero_Destroyer posted...

nobody feed the troll

ok fair enough


---

Seems like just an opportunistic moneygrubber. That doesn't mean Amazon's overall policies don't need to change for employee physical and mental well-being, but there doesn't appear to be a single factor in the presented information that can correlate their policies to the miscarriage.

chrono625 posted...

As someone whos wife had a miscarriage at 5 weeks and 10 weeks. Her doctors said miscarriages in the first trimester are significantly higher by a large margin.

if she can prove Amazon caused her to directly have a miscarriage sue them, but its going to be insanely hard to prove when miscarriages happen so frequently for mainly little to no outside reason.

Don't bother. I said something similar earlier in the thread. A real OBGYN chimed in and said that demanding employer concessions at 7 weeks is unrealistic and unnecessary. But, you know, why let logic and facts get in the way when the pitchforks are out.

It could of happened at any company, but it's trendy to hate on Amazon right now.

kelemvor posted...

Don't bother. I said something similar earlier in the thread. A real OBGYN chimed in and said that demanding employer concessions at 7 weeks is unrealistic and unnecessary. But, you know, why let logic and facts get in the way when the pitchforks are out.

It could of happened at any company, but it's trendy to hate on Amazon right now.

miscarriages are higher because of complete separate issues not related to work stresses or exposures. Most of them are, again, genetic anomalies that are nonviable. Nowhere in obstetric literature (including the entirety of retrospective studies) is manual labor a statistically significant risk factor for miscarriage. While I think its nice if a company accommodates a low risk pregnancy in the first trimester, it is not necessary for the benefit of the pregnancy.

---

Flamer_Blue posted...

It is not Amazon's fault that she didn't plan her life accordingly.
Especially if she was already denied accomodations, common sense would have told you to stop working, have your baby, then sue.

that's not common sense whatsoever. but the issue is that she probably won't win, even though her baby did die. without the baby dying, she 100% would not have win. the law wouldn't be on her side then either. so basically, she'd stop working, have no money/lose her home, and then sue and lose.

also, what money would she be using to sue with?