City gains favorable ruling in the case filed by a Clinton Firefighter over light duty while she was pregnant

FacebookTwitterGoogle+EmailPrintFriendlyShare

A District Court judge has ruled in favor of the city in the case of Clinton Firefighter who claimed she was unfairly denied ‘light duty’ when she was pregnant.  The summary judgment was filed in Clinton County District Court and written by Judge Henry Latham Second                                                    Link to complete ruling is included

Karen McQuistion became aware she was pregnant on May 9th of 2011 and notified her supervisors at the Fire Department and requested light duty.  That request was eventually denied by the City Attorney and City Administrator.

In late September McQuistion stopped working on the recommendation of her doctor and returned to work in March 2012 at the same rank and pay.

In March 2012 she brought the suit against the city claiming discrimination and a violation of the Iowa Constitution.

In the 13-page ruling Judge Latham ruled on three different claims in favor the city.

In one count the judge ruled that McQuistion’s case was not similar to Clinton Police Officers who had been given light duty when pregnant because the police bargaining unit contract calls for light duty in those situations and the fire department contract did not.

In another count, McQuistion claimed it was a violation of equal protection under the constitution.  The judge wrote that the plaintiff could not identify any other city employees, except the two Clinton Police Officers, treated more favorably.  Referring to previous section the judge recalled the difference in union contracts and denied that claim.

The city policies were cited by Judge Latham for denying a claim that McQuistion was denied due process and her employer was not obligated to provide her with her certain advantages for rights to become pregnant.  He said the policies do not discriminate against her rights.

The cost for this motion, if any, are to be assessed against the plaintiff.

Read the ruling here:  Ruling on msj 2 13 14