AUGUSTA — The state panel on worker’s rights found reasonable grounds that a pregnant waitress at Shaner’s Family Restaurant was discriminated against when she was removed from the work schedule over a year ago.  

The Maine Human Rights Commission voted Monday that it had cause to believe Shaner’s Restaurant violated the rights of Paris resident Samantha Blom when she was placed on involuntary maternity leave.

The commission unanimously agreed with investigator Angela Tizon’s report issued in February that Blom’s employment status was changed against her will on the basis of her gender and on different terms than other employees.

The restaurant employed about 15 people prior to closing, and is subject to state and federal employment regulations. 

The commission makes the ruling on whether there are grounds to believe discrimination occurred and whether there is a chance the complainant could prevail in a civil lawsuit. 

According to the report, Blom worked at the restaurant starting in 2011. In June of 2013, Blom notified restaurant owner Jack Shaner that she was pregnant with an expected due date of January 30, 2014. At some point after, she moved to morning shifts because of morning sickness at night. 

On Dec. 27, 2013, Blom inquired about her shift schedule for the following week and was told she had been removed, effectively  placing her on maternity leave, because she was getting too close to her due date; no return date was given.

A few weeks later, when it became apparent the restaurant was closing for good, the report said Blom was told she would be ineligible for unemployment benefits because she had been on maternity leave. The restaurant closed in February 2013.

Shaner denied that he discriminated against Blom and, had the restaurant not closed, fully intended to place her back on the schedule after her maternity leave.

According to the report, Shaner said he changed the schedule because he feared for her health. Shaner told investigators Blom notified him verbally of her due date, but despite several requests he had not received written confirmation and could not keep track of it without documentation. 

According to the report, employees told Shaner that Blom was unable to perform certain tasks such as lifting a tub of ice cream, but she never notified him of work restrictions. Shaner said he had concerns over her health after she made two trips to the emergency room unrelated to her pregnancy, but never felt she performed her job unsatisfactorily. 

“… regardless of the causes for her trips to the emergency room, respondent did not have sufficient information to conclude that complainant could not perform her work duties in a safe manner, and provided no evidence to support this conclusion.” 

The report said Shaner could not explain why further documentation of her due date was needed and that concerns about reliability and safety because of perceptions about her pregnancy as opposed to medical documentation are unlawful. As Blom never stated she had work restrictions or needed accommodation, the restaurant had no reason to require medical documentation.

ccrosby@sunmediagroup.net 

Copy the Story Link