Muslim World Report

Denied Telework for High-Risk Pregnancy Raises Workplace Concerns

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 17, 2025 10:39 AM | 8 min read | 1543 words

TL;DR: An employee’s denial of telework during a high-risk pregnancy reveals significant gaps in workplace maternity policies. This case underscores the urgent need for reform to ensure health accommodations for expectant mothers, highlighting the ethical responsibilities of employers and the potential for systemic change.

The Intersection of Healthcare, Workplace Policy, and Human Rights: The Case of a Pregnant Employee

The case of an employee navigating the final weeks of her high-risk pregnancy illustrates a profound and troubling intersection of healthcare, workplace policy, and human rights. In seeking telework accommodations to reduce stress and ensure both her safety and that of her unborn child, the employee faced significant obstacles. Despite providing a supportive doctor’s note and navigating a convoluted application process, her request was ultimately denied. The employer’s alternatives—extra breaks and unscheduled liberal leave—failed to address her genuine needs, revealing systemic inadequacies in workplace maternity policies and the urgent necessity for more compassionate corporate responses.

Such denials are not mere procedural setbacks; they are emblematic of broader societal attitudes toward working mothers. Consider the following:

  • Impact on health outcomes: Research indicates that maternity-related health issues significantly affect both maternal and child health outcomes (ACOG, 2018).
  • Growing demands: As workplaces become increasingly demanding, similar situations are likely to arise across various sectors, raising critical questions about gender equity and employee rights (Wheeler et al., 2020).

The implications of this employee’s experience extend beyond her individual case. It symbolizes a failure in the ethical responsibilities of employers to accommodate health needs during pregnancy—a responsibility that is increasingly pivotal in our fast-paced work environments.

The global implications of such cases are profound. In a world where worker rights often clash with corporate interests, the challenges faced by this employee resonate with many who endure similar struggles. The realities of high-risk pregnancies touch on workplace policies across various cultural contexts, and these challenges can either affirm or undermine local and global movements advocating for parental rights and gender equity (Novak et al., 2017).

If unaddressed, the implications of this denial could set dangerous precedents, calling into question how corporate entities prioritize profit over the well-being of their workforce.

This scenario invites a reevaluation of existing legal frameworks, notably the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in the United States. The FMLA provides essential protections but is often riddled with confusion and inadequacies. Its applicability hinges on specific circumstances (ACOG, 2018). When employees encounter resistance from employers regarding legitimate health-related accommodation requests, it becomes evident that urgent reforms are necessary to ensure that workplaces are both responsive and supportive, especially in matters concerning maternal health.

The lack of comprehensive maternity protection legislation highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms that guarantee reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers across various sectors (Krief et al., 2022).

An Analysis of Potential Outcomes

If the employee opts to seek legal counsel and invokes the FMLA or other relevant statutes, several outcomes may unfold:

  • Clarity of rights: Legal support can provide clarity regarding her rights, obliging the employer to reconsider her request.
  • Employer obligations: Employers are legally bound to accommodate genuinely high-risk pregnancies, and failure to do so could lead to significant repercussions (Siegel, 1985).
  • Precedent establishment: A successful case could establish a precedent, encouraging others in similar situations to assert their rights.

However, pursuing legal action poses risks as well.

  • Fear of retaliation: There is a legitimate fear of retaliation, which often looms for employees in similar circumstances.
  • Psychological toll: The psychological toll of litigation—especially during the late stages of pregnancy—cannot be underestimated, potentially worsening her health and that of her unborn child (Marsters et al., 2023).

What If the Employer Reconsiders the Request?

Imagine a scenario where, facing mounting pressure and potential legal accountability, the employer reevaluates its decision and grants the requested telework accommodation. Such a decision may signal a commitment to employee welfare, fostering a more humane workplace culture. This shift could have immediate positive effects on the employee’s health and well-being, allowing her to continue working without exacerbating her high-risk condition.

Moreover, this decision may lead to a ripple effect within the organization:

  • Other employees might feel more confident in voicing their health concerns.
  • This could foster a more supportive workplace environment, enhancing employee morale.
  • The employer’s public image may improve, showcasing a commitment to employee welfare that can attract talent.

However, while this outcome appears ideal, it raises questions about the underlying policies that permitted such denials in the first place. If employers can readily reconsider under pressure, it indicates that existing systems may be inadequate or misaligned with the health needs of their workforce.

What If Systemic Change Is Initiated?

What if this situation becomes a catalyst for systemic change in workplace policies regarding maternity accommodations? If this employee’s case gains traction, it could inspire a larger movement advocating for the rights of pregnant employees and other vulnerable workers. Increased public awareness could galvanize advocacy groups to campaign for stronger protections, leading to legislative changes that bolster employees’ rights to reasonable accommodations during critical health situations.

Such a movement could invoke solidarity among employees across sectors, igniting conversations about the need for comprehensive healthcare coverage that prioritizes maternal and child health. The call for systemic change can serve as a unifying issue across divisions, encouraging groups traditionally seen as disconnected to engage with one another.

Advocacy for systemic change can also foster a broader cultural shift regarding how pregnancy is perceived within the workplace. Supporting parents during high-risk pregnancies is a vital investment in the workforce’s future. However, pursuing systemic change may invite challenges from employers resistant to modifying their established policies. Businesses often argue that increased accommodations impose operational burdens or heightened costs. Yet, supporting employee health can lead to long-term benefits, including reduced turnover rates, lower healthcare costs, and enhanced workplace productivity (Vilar-Compte et al., 2021).

Recognizing the moral obligations that companies have toward their employees during such critical life phases is essential. This underscores the ethical responsibilities of companies and highlights the pragmatic benefits of creating accommodating work environments that nurture employee well-being.

Strategic Maneuvers for Stakeholders

In light of the current situation, several strategic maneuvers can be undertaken by all stakeholders involved—employees, employers, and advocacy groups—to address the deficiencies in workplace policies related to maternity accommodations.

For the Employee

  • Documentation: Document all communications regarding her request for telework, including responses from her employer.
  • Legal consultation: Consult with a legal expert specializing in employment law and maternal rights for insights into the FMLA and other relevant regulations.
  • Support networks: Engage with support networks, such as local advocacy groups focused on maternity rights, for emotional support and strategic advice.
  • Prioritize health: If necessary, consider taking sick leave or invoking FMLA to prioritize health rather than risking adversity for short-term gains.

For the Employer

  • Cultivate empathy: Employers must cultivate a culture of empathy and support regarding health-related accommodations.
  • Policy alignment: Revisit existing policies to align with legal standards and ensure clear guidelines for handling accommodation requests.
  • Training: Conduct training for management on the importance of workplace accommodations to foster a more supportive environment.
  • Regular reviews: Periodically review maternity-related policies to identify areas needing reform, preventing incidents like the one faced by this employee.

For Advocacy Groups

  • Amplify voices: Advocacy organizations can amplify the employee’s voice and raise awareness about the systemic issues contributing to these challenges.
  • Educational campaigns: Organize campaigns to educate the public about the importance of maternity accommodations and push for legislative changes.
  • Partnerships: Partner with legal aid organizations to provide resources and support for employees navigating complicated labor laws.
  • Mobilize support: Encourage community support and foster dialogue on maternity rights to ensure the plight of pregnant workers receives the necessary attention.

In addressing the case of this pregnant employee, it is essential to recognize that her experience is not an isolated incident but rather a reflection of systemic challenges that many workers face across various sectors. By taking a proactive stance and advocating for comprehensive policy changes, stakeholders can work towards solutions that prioritize health and well-being, ensuring that no one faces undue adversity during vulnerable life stages. The stakes are high, and collective action for reform will undoubtedly shape the future landscape of employee rights and health accommodations in workplaces across the globe.

References

  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2018). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 733: Employment Considerations During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period. Obstetrics and Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000002589
  • Matsa, D. A., & Miller, A. R. (2013). A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(3), 136-169. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.3.136
  • Novak, I., Morgan, C., Adde, L., et al. (2017). Early, accurate diagnosis and intervention in cerebral palsy. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1689
  • Phelan, A. (2020). COVID-19 immunity passports and vaccination certificates: Scientific, equitable, and legal challenges. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31034-5
  • Siegel, R. (1985). Employment discrimination law, a practice-oriented approach. Harvard Law Review, 98(6), 2383-2390. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341098
  • Vilar-Compte, M., et al. (2021). Breastfeeding at the workplace: A systematic review of interventions to improve workplace environments to facilitate breastfeeding among working women. International Journal for Equity in Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01432-3
  • Wheeler, S. M., Massengale, K. E. C., Adewumi, K., et al. (2020). Pregnancy vs. paycheck: A qualitative study of patient experiences with employment during pregnancy at high risk for preterm birth. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03246-7
← Prev Next →