By Susan Demar Lafferty
The Daily Southtown
FRANKFORT, Ill. — For a second time, a patrol officer accused the Frankfort police department of discriminating against her while she was pregnant, according to an amended complaint filed by the ACLU of Illinois.
The Sept. 13 complaint claims the department refused to allow officer Jennifer Panattoni to modify her duties and provide her with properly-fitting protective gear while on patrol. The claims also were made in her lawsuit in September, 2017.
“Unfortunately, the village seems to have doubled down on its policy of not accommodating pregnant officers,” and continued “its pattern of discrimination and retaliation” against Panattoni, who is currently on maternity leave, Amy Meek, staff attorney for the ACLU, said.
Village Administrator Rob Piscia responded in a statement: “The village of Frankfort and the Frankfort Police Department are strongly committed to a discrimination free workplace and to providing reasonable accommodations to employees who need them to perform their jobs. Both the village and the department have long maintained and enforced comprehensive equal employment opportunity policies and strictly prohibit retaliation against employees who engage in protected conduct under those policies.”
While saying the village can’t comment on the pending lawsuits and claims, Piscia said in the statement that the village has complied with state and federal law as well as the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and intends to defend these allegations.
But the police department failed to provide her with a properly fitted bullet-proof vest that is required of patrol officers, refused to modify her duties, and forced Panattoni off the job and onto leave simply because she was pregnant, according to the complaint.
“It’s shocking to experience the exact same discriminatory treatment all over again. Yet again, I’ve been forced to choose between a job I love and carrying my pregnancy safely to term. They accommodate other officers who need temporary modified duties, but because I am pregnant, I have been forced off the job. It’s very sad that my department doesn’t respect pregnant officers enough to treat me like any other police officer,” Panattoni said in a statement.
Panattoni was told there were no light duties, then when she listed several, they imposed other conditions, such as taking a pay cut, or performing some patrol duties, which required the body armor, Meek said.
Male officers who needed similar job modifications because of injury have not been forced to take a pay cut, Meek said.
Panettoni has been “subject to scrutiny, threatened with discipline, denied promotions and training,” which has “damaged” her 15-year career, according to the lawsuit.
Her attorney said the first complaint has yet to be resolved, but they are trying to work it out with the department.
The officer’s goal is to have the department establish a policy for pregnant officers, Meek said.
Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, said each police chief or union determines a department’s policies regarding pregnant officers since there is no national standard.
“Generically speaking, efforts are made to accommodate women in law enforcement,” he said. Light duty is always an option, and a department ought to make suitable body armor available, but he said, “it’s not cheap.”
Discrimination against pregnant workers was a “job issue” that is gone in most work places, he said. “But there are little anomalies, like fitted body armor and physical activity,” he said.
“There are plenty of things that can be done to accommodate officers who are older, temporarily disabled or pregnant,” Pasco said. “An enlightened police chief with a good union will address those issues.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission previously dismissed Panattoni’s charge of discrimination and retaliation finding that it was unable to conclude that the information obtained during its investigation established violations of any employment statute, Piscia said in a statement.
Meek said the EEOC complaint, filed in July 2016, was the first step Panettoni had to take before filing her lawsuit.
“Its finding is not binding,” she said.