(Google Maps)
A local veterinary clinic that was once listed as “Best in New York” by New York Magazine has been accused of violating the Federal Pregnancy Disability Act by ignoring a pregnant employee’s repeated requests for basic accommodations and putting her in unsafe working conditions.
Advertisement
As first reported by the Patch, 28-year-old Shayba Douglas said in a suit against City Veterinary Care that she was fired abruptly via text message for “repeated tardiness” even though she had never been reprimanded for work-related issues before. The lawsuit also claims the tardiness in question came after Douglas returned home from a scheduled vacation, got sick for three days, and texted her manager about her situation. She did admit however, that she sometimes arrived late or needed extra rest breaks because of morning sickness.
Douglas also claims that she was forced to lift heavy boxes without assistance, that management ignored her request to avoid toxoplasmosis exposure by cleaning litter boxes, and that she was exposed to radiation during an x-ray without her permission.
Her suit against the veterinary practice at 220 West 72nd Street (between West End Avenue and Broadway) also claims that she was discriminated against because of “pregnancy and gender” for which she “seeks damages, back and front pay.”
The unnamed manager was included in the suit, but if her allegations are true, this would also implicate the owner of City Vet Care, Dr. Andrew Kaplan.
We reached out to Kaplan who replied with, “Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We deny all allegations in this complaint and intend to proceed accordingly.”
Despite repeated phone calls and voicemails, Douglas’ lawyers could not be reached.
It would seem that since her physical condition prevented her from carrying out the necessary functions of her job a leave of absence might have been the way to go. I don’t see how or why the veterinary practice should continue to keep an employee on full-time staff if that employee is not physically up to carrying out the job’s requirements. Here, both sides seem to have points in their favor.
If I had a dollar every time I’ve seen or heard of this maneuver: woman joins company (not usually a veterinary practice but, hey, if they offer medical/health insurance that’s all that matters) knowing she’s pregnant (and the law protects her right NOT to have to divulge this during pre-employment interviews) or, now with insurance coverage, wants to get pregnant and succeeds, she then takes more-than-usual time off, is often late, unable to handle previously required work responsibilities, has not yet worked enough months to qualify to use vacation time, et al., she’s either docked pay or works her way out the door with too much tardiness, absences….then she files a lawsuit….I’d have just about $200! It happens all too often and it’s a shame that a small, doing God’s work firm like a veterinary practice would have gotten itself involved with someone like this. Hopefully they will prevail in the courts and seek and receive lawyers’ fees from the plaintiff after the case is dismissed or decided against her. It’s not outright grift but it sure comes darn close. And I’m sure they aren’t even allowed to ask for proof of her pregnancy even though they ARE entitled to require a doctor’s note explaining all the absences and/or length of absences if over 2 or 3 days. Who knows if the practice has even been legitimately asking for those written explanations along the way as well as documenting each and every “Oh, I can’t do that” or “Oh, that’s too heavy” or “I can’t be exposed to cat feces” etc. etc. as they occurred let alone all the late arrivals, early departures and taking too many sick days based on time employed and how those days only accrue based on time employed; they’re not automatic or earned in advance.
Look! We found the owner of this vet clinic!
Frequently absent, frequently late, and can’t do many parts of the job.
Don’t forget “Doesn’t want to get fetus exposed to radiation or toxoplasmosis.” The nerve of her!