MARYLAND LAWYER SAVES BREASTFEEDING CBP OFFICER
Socorro Thome was a trained and experienced Customs and Border Protection Officer (CBPO) in the tough port of El Paso, Texas when she became pregnant in November 2010. At that point, she began light duty work. Following the birth and some FMLA leave, she returned to work in October 2011 approved to work without physical restrictions. However, two weeks later she asked to be returned to light duty because she planned to breastfeed her child until he was one year old and his pediatrician “highly recommended” that the Officer continue on light duty while breastfeeding due to a concern that “she may be exposed to contaminants such as lead, drugs, or infectious diseases that may be transmitted to the child through breast milk.” She backed that up with a note from her own doctor and in January 2012 email, an agency Labor and Employment Relations Specialist stated that she had determined that the appellant’s medical documentation was sufficient to support her request to remain on light duty while breastfeeding. Three weeks later the Port Director gave her a letter insisting that she return to full duty or resign. When she refused to choose, he proposed to remove her on a charge of “Unavailability for Full Performance of Customs and Border Protection Officer Duties,” citing her “continued unwillingness or inability” to fully perform CBPO duties. The deciding official sustained the charge, noting that although Thome was medically able to fully perform her duties she chose to make herself unavailable. He also stated that Thome’s demand to be isolated from lead, drugs, and infectious diseases was “literally impossible to fulfill” and pointe out that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) had conducted a study which determined that “exposure for agency employees was within tolerable limits.” Do you see the error the agency made that guaranteed Thome would win the case? (Hint: It has nothing to do with pregnancy discrimination.) Continue reading