GovernmentExecutive.com

A former security screener at the San Diego International Airport won a gender and disability discrimination complaint against the Transportation Security Administration after her supervisors refused to oblige requests for regularly scheduled breaks while she was pregnant.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision, San Diego resident Clare Domingo, who was diagnosed with gestational diabetes, needed periodic breaks from her job to check her blood sugar level and take care of matters relating to her medical condition and her pregnancy, such as getting the necessary food to bring her blood sugar levels back to normal.

After TSA rejected her request for regular breaks from her work, Domingo asked to be moved to a part-time position, which was denied by the agency. Domingo, who was hired by the agency in the fall of 2002, also asked for an administrative job that would allow for regular breaks, but that request was denied.

Domingo then took an unpaid leave of absence on Oct. 24, 2003, for the rest of her pregnancy because of health complications associated with her diabetes.

While on the unpaid maternity leave, she was denied a request for promotion on Feb. 6, 2004, to a lead position which would have involved a salary increase. She had been working in an acting lead position for five months before she took the unpaid leave and was told that the application process was a mere formality.

Domingo resigned from TSA on Aug. 30 2004 for personal reasons unrelated to her EEOC complaint.

The complaint, filed by Domingo and the American Federation of Government Employees, was heard by the EEOC.

According to AFGE officials, the EEOC ruled in favor of the employee and sanctioned TSA for "numerous failures in its responsibility to process the case."

Gony Frieder, the AFGE lawyer representing the employee, said that four supervisors above Domingo have been ordered to attend eight hours of discrimination training and Domingo will receive back pay for her unpaid leave time, including a raise she would have received if she had received her promotion to lead screener. TSA also is required to post prominently at the San Diego airport a notice of discrimination findings related to Domingo's case.

"Representatives of the Transportation Security Administration consistently have asserted through their actions and their words that the TSA is above the laws of the United States," said Frieder. "This decision clearly reaffirms that no agency may violate the laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace. Discrimination is not in the public interest nor is it in the interest of national security."

According to Frieder, TSA failed to cooperate with the EEOC throughout the case, and the decision describes the methods the agency used to delay the case by failing to follow the EEOC judge's orders and flouting federal regulations. She said the only part of the case they are not satisfied with is that TSA does not have to pay the legal fees associated with the case because AFGE is a union.

TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser said that the decision in favor of the employee is procedural and that it does not question "TSA's commitment to a fair and equal workplace." He said programs like TSA's Model Workplace initiative and conflict resolution training for screeners illustrates the agency's commitment to fostering "an environment where all our screeners can succeed."

Clare C. Domingo v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, 340-2004-00589X, August 17, 2005.

COMMENTS

• In regard to: Why allow one employee extra breaks and discriminate against her fellow employees by making them work during Clare's multi-breaks? Management also shouldn't have to pay her the same pay if she doesn't perform at the same level as her fellow employees. My reply: This is so funny because again, you assumed that I was a lay screener who whined over not having breaks. Let me school you again in facts. I was an acting lead who hardly took breaks and who let all of her crew take lunches and breaks before even thinking about myself because as you've stated, the job would never get done. So not only did I not have the "guaranteed 15 minutes breaks throughout my shift and a normal 1/2 lunch break," I did it without crying and whining about it. My crew could vouch for that. So again, assuming SATOTC, please don't say that I didn't perform at the level everyone else on my crew performed at because I always went above and beyond. In regard to: Management also shouldn't have to pay her the same pay if she doesn't perform at the same level as her fellow employees. Maybe, assuming SATOTC, you shouldn't be paid for your status because clearly, you don't know what management is, let alone, management and policies for the federal government... So having said all of this, let me clue you in on the end of this story . . . I've won. Not only all of the little battles leading up to the end, but the actual war. Thanks for not doing your job! Clare Posted February 27, 2006 4:28 PM
• In regards to: Was Clare aware of her physical condition when she applied for the job and did she make management aware of her condition? My reply: No I was not aware of gestational diabetes because gestational diabetes is, as it says, gestational. It comes and goes with pregnancy. And if I were diabetic at the time that I was hired for the position, it would have been disclosed and if you did your research on government and policies, you would know that it is illegal to discriminate based on disability, which diabetes would fall under. So please do some homework before trying to school the public. In regards to: Clare made the decision (not management) to get pregnant and I'm sure she was also aware that her decision would escalate her medical condition. Do you think she ever thought about her commitment to her job when she made the decision to get pregnant? My reply: This is just idiotic and I don't have to explain it any further, but let’s do so because I know you're confused. Let me give you an example, if a female peace officer becomes pregnant and eventually can no longer perform the duties as signed up for due to normal pregnancy issues, do you think that her superiors and in essence, her employer would say, "Uh sorry, but you got pregnant and uh we didn't hire a pregnant woman so uh, you can't work here anymore and we can't accommodate you"? Oh come on now! I would hope that they wouldn't because there would be a ton more of these types of cases because that would mean that they all think like you! And this is very sad yet entertaining because clearly, assuming SATOTC, you do not know your job. There is something called maternity leave and FMLA which allows for employers to accommodate life changing situations. Again, I cannot stress to you how much you should have read over these policies before opening your mouth. I will continue this on another posting soon to follow. Clare Posted February 27, 2006 4:25 PM
• If the facts are as stated (the press often misses relevant facts) the managers did nothing wrong in a legal sense. What this does illustrate is that the managers are not competent managers. This situation as pointed out by Charlie is rampant throughout the government. There is no reason to punish me by paying this women with my money because of incompetent managers. The managers should pay the costs of the back pay not me! They also should be demoted and not just made to attend some useless training on discrimination. taxpayer Posted September 15, 2005 7:05 AM