NYCLU Files Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against The Suffolk County Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ————————————————————X SANDRA LOCHREN, SARAH A. MACDERMOTT and PATRICIA O’BRIEN, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND – against – COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants ————————————————————X PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a pregnancy discrimination action brought by three women employed as police officers by the Suffolk County Police Department (“the Department”), which long has been under a federal consent decree arising out of allegations of discrimination against minorities and women. The Department forced all three women off their jobs when they became pregnant and sought “light-duty” assignments even though the Department at the same time was allowing significant numbers of incapacitated male police officers to work light-duty assignments, even when those assignments were prompted by medical conditions incurred off duty.
2. The Department, which has been the subject of considerable controversy arising out of recent allegations of sexual misconduct by some of its male officers, continues to discriminate against female police officers in its provision of light-duty assignments. It has adopted a policy barring light-duty assignments for all officers suffering from injuries or conditions incurred off duty, including pregnancy, even though the Department has reported to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) figures that establish that this policy will have a substantially disproportionate impact on the few women currently employed by the Department.
3. The plaintiffs herein have been and continue to be harmed by the Department’s discriminatory actions, which violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and specifically as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the consent decree under which the Department is operating. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that their rights have been and are being violated, back pay, compensatory damages, a permanent injunction against the Department’s current light-duty policy, and attorneys’ fees.
4. Specifically, plaintiffs herein seek a declaration, compensatory damages, back pay and attorneys’ fees based upon the Department’s refusal to assign them to light duty positions due to their pregnancies, while permitting other officers with medical conditions incurred on the job, medical conditions incurred off the job prior to April 2000, officers subject to disciplinary actions and others to occupy such positions. Plaintiffs also seek a permanent injunction against the Department’s current light-duty policy that discriminatorily excludes all officers with medical conditions arising off duty, and by definition, all pregnant officers, from light duty positions while assigning officers with job-related medical conditions, officers subject to disciplinary actions and others to such posts. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (Title VII). Supplemental jurisdiction is asserted over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
6. Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b) and (c), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because the unlawful employment practices giving rise to this action were committed in the Eastern District of New York, and the plaintiffs reside in this district. PARTIES
7. Plaintiff SANDRA LOCHREN has been a Suffolk County Police Officer since 1993. She is a resident of Southold, New York.
8. Plaintiff SARAH A. MACDERMOTT has been a Suffolk County Police Officer since 1989, assigned to the First Precinct in West Babylon. She is a resident of Port Jefferson Station, New York.
9. Plaintiff PATRICIA O’BRIEN has been a Suffolk County Police Officer since November 1998. She is a resident of Mount Sinai, New York.
10. Defendant SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (“SCPD”) was and is an agency of defendant COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and employs Plaintiffs Lochren, MacDermott and O’Brien. Upon information and belief, SCPD employs more than 2,500 employees.
11. Defendant COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (“SUFFOLK COUNTY”) was and is a Municipal Corporation, having a place of business in Suffolk County, New York, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York. Defendant Suffolk County owns, operates, manages and controls defendant Suffolk County Police Department. JURY DEMAND
12. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on each and every claim to which they are so entitled. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Background
13. Plaintiffs SANDRA LOCHREN, SARAH MACDERMOTT, and PATRICIA O’BRIEN are among a very small number of women officers employed by SCPD.
14. Low numbers of women on the force have been constant for years. In 1982, upon information and belief, there were only approximately ten women in uniformed positions in the SCPD out of a total force of approximately 2,000 officers.
15. In June 1983, the United States brought an action against Suffolk County and the Suffolk County Police Department, United States v. Suffolk County (E.D.N.Y. 83 C 2737), alleging that they had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against women, blacks and Hispanics with regard to job opportunities within the police department in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
16. In a September 1986 Consent Decree resolving United States v. Suffolk County et al., Suffolk County and the SCPD acknowledged that certain selection criteria for hire and assignment, certain personnel practices, and the substantial disproportions between the percentages of women, blacks and Hispanics in the SCPD as compared to the relevant labor market may have given rise to an inference that it had discriminated against women, blacks and Hispanics with respect to job opportunities in the Suffolk County Police Department.
17. Suffolk County and the SCPD agreed that thereinafter they would not utilize any “qualifications or selection criteria for hire, assignment, transfer or promotion within the SCPD … which have an adverse racial, gender or ethnic impact unless such qualifications have been validated in accordance with the Uniform Guidelines.” See United States v. Suffolk County et al., Consent Decree entered September 12, 1986 at 7, ¶9.
18. The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. Part 1607, are applied by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the enforcement of Title VII and incorporate a single set of principles designed to assist employers in complying with federal employment discrimination law. Among other things, the Uniform Guidelines deem that selection criteria that have an adverse impact against a members of any race, sex or ethnic group are discriminatory unless such criteria can be validated by a demonstration that the selection criteria accurately reflect or significantly correlate with important aspects of the job, or that the criteria measure an ability correlated with job success.
19. As of February 1992, the SCPD employed only 148 female officers, constituting 6.16 percent of SCPD’s total of 2,404 officers. Eight years later, as of July 1, 2000, there were 262 female officers, constituting slightly more than 10 percent of the force’s total of 2,564 officers.
20. SCPD employs no women among its top nineteen management positions, consisting of the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, four Chiefs, Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief, and eleven Inspectors. As of August 2000, out of the approximately 153 officers in positions at the rank of Lieutenant and above (Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, four Chiefs, Assistant Chief, Deputy Chief, eleven Inspectors, fifteen Deputy Inspectors, nineteen Captains, eighteen Detective Lieutenants, and eighty-two Lieutenants), there were only two women.
21. Prior to April 12, 2000, the SCPD had a long-standing unwritten policy and practice of providing light duty assignments to officers who had medical conditions or injuries that prevented them from performing a full range of confrontational police duties. Officers on light duty continued to receive their full salaries.
22. Light duty assignments involve a lower risk of confrontation with civilians and a lower degree of physical exertion than regular patrol duty. Light duty jobs include, but are not limited to, assignments as precinct desk officers, crossing guard supervisors, vehicle maintenance officers, Police Academy Instructors, Drug Abuse Resistance and Education (“DARE”) instructors, beach patrol officers, and administrative and investigative posts.
23. Upon information and belief, from 1979 or earlier and through April 12, 2000, officers who incurred medical conditions both on and off the job were eligible for light duty assignments and generally sought such positions from their commanding officers within each precinct or command. In addition, prior to April 12, 2000, officers under Internal Affairs investigation and/or subject to disciplinary action were assigned by SCPD to light duty posts.
24. As the SCPD began placing small numbers of women in patrol positions on or about the early 1980s, patrol officers who became pregnant were placed at light duty desk and administrative posts.
25. Prior to April 12, 2000, the SCPD designated officers on light duty due to line-of-duty injuries to be on “code 401” status; officers on light duty assignments due to medical conditions incurred off duty, including pregnancy, were labeled to be on “code 301” status.
26. Under the pre-April 2000 unwritten policy and practice, pregnant women routinely sought and received light duty assignments if they so desired. Women officers who became pregnant sought and obtained light duty positions by notifying their commanding officers in writing that they were pregnant and by providing a physician’s note advising of the pregnancy.
27. According to records supplied by Defendants to the EEOC, from September 1997 through April 2000, there were approximately 101 new light duty assignments made as a result of medical conditions arising off duty (“off duty light duty assignments”). This total does not include those officers continuing on light duty status to which they had been assigned prior to September 1997.
28. Out of the approximately 101 total off duty light duty assignments from September 1997 through April 2000, approximately sixty, or 59 percent, were held by women. In contrast, less than 10 percent of SCPD officers during this time period were women.
29. Pregnancy-related assignments comprised forty-five, or approximately 45 percent, of the 101 off duty light duty assignments made from September 1997 through April 2000. Of the off duty light duty assignments made to women from September 1997 through April 2000, 75 percent were pregnancy-related.
30. From September 1997 through April 2000, there were approximately 341 light duty assignments resulting from conditions incurred both in the line of duty and off duty. This total does not include those officers previously assigned to light duty status who remained on light duty.
31. Out of the approximately 341 total light duty assignments made during this period, pregnancy-related assignments comprised approximately 13.2 percent. All of the pregnancy-related assignments were categorized as resulting from off duty conditions and labeled code 301 by the SCPD.
32. In addition, the average percentage of off-duty light duty assignment slots held by pregnant women in any given month from 1995 to the present has exceeded the percentage of all women on the force during each given month.
33. The pregnancy-related off-duty light duty assignments made from September 1997 through April 2000 averaged less than six months in length. Change in Light Duty Policy
34. In the beginning of April 2000, Defendants changed the light duty policy whereby anyone who incurred a medical condition or injury off the job would no longer be eligible for light duty.
35. Defendants changed the light duty policy by issuing a Departmental Directive, Order Number 00-10, from Police Commissioner John C. Gallagher on April 11, 2000. The directive stated, “Effective 0001 hours, April 12, 2000, no sworn officer will be placed on 301, Limited Duty Status.”
36. The Department issued a second directive from Commissioner Gallagher concerning light duty status on April 13, 2000. The directive stated that its purpose was “to clarify Special Order 00-10.” It stated that effective April 12, 2000, “any sworn officer who suffers an off duty injury, condition or an illness that prevents him or her from performing full police duties will not be allowed to work until such time as said officer is able to perform full police duties. Absences resulting from the inability to perform full police duties as a result of an illness, condition or off duty injury will be coded, for attendance purposes, ‘301’.”
37. The April 12, 2000 policy which privileged and continues to privilege officers with medical conditions incurred on the job and which disadvantages those experiencing medical conditions arising off the job—disproportionately pregnant women—cannot be shown to be a valid, job-related selection criteria within the meaning of the Uniform Guidelines nor can the policy be shown to be job related and consistent with business necessity.
38. Notwithstanding the above orders, the Department exempted from the change in policy all those officers already classified as on light duty arising from conditions incurred off-duty prior to April 12, 2000. This group, grandparented into off duty light duty slots (the “grandparented group”), consisted of thirty-six officers, according to documents filed with the EEOC.
39. Twenty-three of the thirty-six grandparented officers were men, ten of whom had been on light duty assignments for more than five years and five of whom had been on light duty more than ten years. These included a male officer on light duty since 1989 due to an eye condition; two men on light duty since the 1980s due to diabetes; and a man on light duty since 1979 due to a heart condition. All of these male officers were permitted to continue working at light duty assignments after the April 12, 2000 change in policy. In addition, Defendants permitted a male officer on light duty since 1980 due to psychiatric reasons to continue at a light duty assignment until his retirement in August 2000.
40. The grandparented group included eight women with pregnancy-related conditions, all of who were scheduled to leave light duty assignments within the following year. In contrast, as of November 7, 2000, only one member of the grandparented group who had gone on light duty due to a non-pregnancy-related condition had a date scheduled to return to full duty.
41. Defendants continued to make off duty light duty assignments available to twenty-six officers with non-pregnancy-related conditions who had no scheduled return date as of November 7, 2000. These twenty-six officers who were permitted to continue at light duty assignments had been on off duty light duty for an average of almost six years by April 2000.
42. Defendants also filled light duty precinct desk slots with officers from the grandparented group working overtime shifts. For example, a member of the grandparented group on light duty for nearly four years due to a heart condition earned overtime by working at the Sixth Precinct desk after the change in policy.
43. Upon information and belief, notwithstanding the April 12, 2000 change in policy, Defendants also continued to provide light duty assignments to officers with pending Internal Affairs investigations and officers subject to discipline as a result of Internal Affairs investigations.
44. Defendants have provided a light duty assignment to Officer Steven Dickson, formerly of the SCPD’s highway unit, placing him on the desk at the Fifth Precinct. As reported in a February 6, 2001 Newsday article detailing unfolding allegations concerning the SCPD’s highway unit’s sexual harassment of women civilians, a woman alleged that Officer Dickson kissed her and fondled her chest during a traffic stop 15 years ago, and that she filed a complaint after encountering Dickson two years ago while at work on a construction site.
45. Upon information and belief, two other Highway Unit officers were placed on light duty status subsequent to April 2000. A SCPD officer in the Fourth Precinct assigned to the desk due to a disciplinary action continued to work at the desk, including on overtime shifts, after the change in policy. Defendants placed an officer whose gun had been taken away in connection with a disciplinary investigation at the First Precinct desk subsequent to April 2000.
46. Despite the fact that the April 12, 2000 policy purported to bar all light duty assignments for non-job-related conditions, Defendants allowed officers with non-pregnancy-related conditions to work at light duty assignments after the change in policy.
47. Upon information and belief, Defendants and/or their agents permitted a male officer with a back condition incurred off duty and a male officer with a neck injury incurred off duty to work at the First Precinct desk in May 2000. Defendants and/or their agents permitted an officer who had suffered a heart attack to work at the desk in the Third Precinct beginning in January 2001. A patrol officer in the Transportation Section whose arm was in a sling after falling off his roof was permitted to work at a light duty assignment after the change in policy. Defendants have also permitted Detectives suffering from temporary off-duty injuries after April 2000 to work in their squads despite their inability to perform a full range of duties. One detective was permitted to work with his arm in a sling and another was permitted to work with a cast on part of his hand.
48. Defendants have internally posted light duty openings since April 2000, including a Police Athletic League position posted in June 2000 and a School Crossing Guard Administrator position in September 2000.
49. Upon information and belief, on or about March 2000, the Department sent notices to all officers within the grandparented group stating that they would be required to return to full duty.
50. Upon information and belief, Defendants have singled out pregnancy for unfavorable treatment in leave policies. Upon information and belief, SCPD has a longstanding and continuing practice of permitting officers to receive leave time from other SCPD officers when an officer is out of work due to a medical condition. For example, in the previous year, the Department has allowed officers to donate leave time to an officer on leave due to cancer. In May 2001, the Chief of Department issued an Order alerting officers that they could donate leave time to Officer Raphael Cano, who had been injured in an off-duty car accident.
51. Representatives of the Police Benevolent Association, the police officers union, informed plaintiff Sarah MacDermott that Defendants did not permit the donation or sharing of leave time to officers off the job solely due to pregnancy.
52. Upon information and belief, the SCPD also fails to provide properly fitting bulletproof vests to pregnant officers.
53. As a result of the change in light duty policy, pregnant women have disproportionately suffered a loss of leave time and have been disproportionately forced to take unpaid leaves. Upon information and belief, six pregnant women have been forced to go on leave due to not receiving light duty positions since April 2000.
54. Plaintiffs Lochren, MacDermott and O’Brien—who wished to work throughout their pregnancies—were left with no option but to take unwanted leaves after being denied light duty assignments by Defendants. Each plaintiff was sent home and forced to exhaust accrued sick, vacation, and other leave time. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs did not accrue seniority and longevity time during their forced leaves. After exhausting their leave time, Officers Lochren and O’Brien went without pay. At all times throughout their forced leaves, Plaintiffs were willing to work at light duty assignments. Sarah A. MacDermott
55. Plaintiff SARAH A. MACDERMOTT is thirty-four years old, lives in Port Jefferson, New York, and is the mother of a 3-year-old girl.
56. MacDermott has been a Suffolk County Police Officer since 1989, assigned to the First Precinct in West Babylon. She has received seven Headquarters Commendations and three Command Commendations for her work on patrol.
57. While pregnant with her daughter in 1997, MacDermott worked throughout the bulk of her pregnancy at the First Precinct desk.
58. A week or two prior to the April 12, 2000 change in light duty policy a commanding officer asked MacDermott if she would work at the First Precinct desk that summer. An officer who was pregnant was working at the desk and would be going on maternity leave that summer, creating an opening that would need to be filled. MacDermott—who was not yet aware of her pregnancy—indicated that she would be willing to help out the precinct by working at the desk that summer as long as she could resume patrol work thereafter. She continued to work on patrol.
59. On June 14, 2000, MacDermott wrote an Internal Correspondence form notifying her First Precinct command that she was eight and a half weeks pregnant and “capable of performing her Police Duties.” MacDermott provided the form to her immediate superior, Sergeant Al Murray. MacDermott did not seek a light duty position. MacDermott then resumed patrol in her sector car. While on the road, MacDermott received a radio message ordering her to call the Precinct command.
60. MacDermott called the Precinct and spoke to Murray, who informed her that Lieutenant Stuart Eller was ordering her to “resume patrol or go home.”
61. MacDermott drove back to the First Precinct. When she arrived, Lieutenant Stuart Eller told her she had to go home because of her pregnancy. MacDermott asked Eller if she would be permitted to work at the desk instead. Eller simply ordered her to go home.
62. A male officer suffering from a temporary back injury incurred off the job after April 12, 2000, was working at a First Precinct desk position. When MacDermott noted that this officer was permitted to work at a desk job, Eller responded that the male officer’s condition was temporary, not long-term, and asked MacDermott, “Why don’t you go home and collect disability?”
63. Defendants prohibited MacDermott from returning to work in a patrol position or desk position. Upon information and belief, Defendants sought to fill MacDermott’s patrol shift with other officers working overtime. The next day after MacDermott was ordered off the job, a First Precinct desk officer called MacDermott’s husband, Brian MacDermott, who is also a SCPD officer, and asked, “Do you want to work overtime in your old lady’s car?” Brian MacDermott said no.
64. Approximately one week after MacDermott was ordered off the job, Defendants’ agents ordered her to submit a letter from her doctor stating that she was pregnant.
65. MacDermott provided the Department with the requested physician’s note, dated June 22, 2000, which stated that she was pregnant and requested that she perform “senentry [sic] Duty such as a Desk Position.”
66. While Defendants refused to assign MacDermott to the desk or other light duty positions, First Precinct desk assignments were provided to officers injured off the job, an officer placed on light duty due to a high number of civilian complaints, officers injured in the line of duty and officers working overtime.
67. On or about June 28, 2000, Brian MacDermott submitted a written request to his supervisor that he be permitted to transfer 130 accrued sick days to his wife, Sarah MacDermott, so as to avoid financial hardship to his family. Also on or about June 28, 2000, Sarah MacDermott submitted a written request to receive her husband’s 130 sick days. Despite the fact that SCPD routinely permits officers to donate leave time to other officers off the job due to medical conditions, Brian and Sarah MacDermott were told by a Police Benevolent Association representative that their request was denied because her leave was pregnancy-related.
68. While MacDermott was forced to stay home from work and use accrued leave time, agents of Defendants called her repeatedly at home and demanded that she complete paperwork on an unpaid basis.
69. On or about August 11, 2000, agents of Defendants called MacDermott’s home and demanded that she complete the paperwork, an Internal Correspondence form stemming from a civilian complaint, within the week or face disciplinary action.
70. The harassment and threats by Defendants’ agents caused MacDermott great emotional distress.
71. MacDermott suffered a miscarriage on August 16, 2000. As a result of the miscarriage and accompanying complications, MacDermott required two surgeries, the last of which occurred on September 16, 2000.
72. MacDermott’s physician recommended that MacDermott rest for a full two weeks after the second surgery. However, MacDermott returned to work on September 27, 2000, because her accrued leave time had run out.
73. From June 15, 2000 through September 27, 2000, MacDermott was forced to use 20 sick days, 34 vacation days, 5 personal leave days, and 72 hours of compensatory time.
74. MacDermott and her husband plan to have another child. However, they have delayed doing so because she depleted her leave time during her last pregnancy and anticipates having to go out on leave during her pregnancy as a result of Defendants’ light duty policy. Sandra Lochren
75. Plaintiff SANDRA LOCHREN is thirty-two years old and a resident of Southold, New York. She is a mother of two children, a three-year-old boy and a five-month-old girl. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from Florida Institute of Technology.
76. Lochren has been a Suffolk County police officer for eight years. Since 1996, she has worked as an instructor in the SCPD’s Drug Abuse Resistance and Education (“DARE”) program, teaching an anti-drug education curriculum in various elementary and junior high schools. Prior to becoming a DARE instructor, Officer Lochren worked as a patrol officer in the Sixth Precinct in Coram, New York.
77. When Lochren was pregnant with her first child in 1997, she worked throughout the pregnancy as a DARE instructor.
78. On or about May 22, 2000, Lochren notified her supervisor Lt. William Byrnes in writing that she was ten and a half weeks pregnant. Lochren attached a note from her health care provider advising of her pregnancy. She continued working in the DARE program.
79. On or about June 16, 2000, Lochren learned that she would be transferred to the Sixth Precinct, effective June 19, 2000. On June 19, she arrived at the Sixth Precinct, informed the desk sergeant that she was pregnant and requested a desk assignment. The sergeant assigned her to an open slot at the desk.
80. Lochren was assigned to a patrol car the next day. On June 20, 2000, Lochren again requested a desk position from Lt. Dennis Miley.
81. Lt. Miley told Lochren that he could not place her at the desk. He ordered her to go on patrol or go home sick. Lochren was forced to leave the Precinct.
82. On or about June 21, 2000, Lochren provided SCPD personnel with a note from her physician stating that she should be placed on light duty. In an Internal Correspondence form she was required to submit by SCPD on or about July 8, 2000, Lochren again requested transfer to a light duty position.
83. Defendants refused to assign Lochren to the Sixth Precinct desk or any other light duty position.
84. However, subsequent to April 2000 Defendants have assigned officers from the grandparented group, officers injured in the line of duty, and officers working overtime to the Sixth Precinct desk position.
85. Forced to stay off the job, Lochren utilized approximately 78 days of accrued sick leave, 25 days of accrued vacation leave, 5 days of accrued personal leave, and one day of accrued compensatory leave.
86. Lochren had planned to use these accrued days toward her maternity leave after the birth of her child.
87. Lochren exhausted all accrued leave time on or about December 7, 2000. Lochren has gone without pay since December 8, 2000. Since going without pay, she has not accrued longevity towards retirement or seniority.
88. Defendants’ actions caused Lochren great emotional distress. On or about December 1, 2000, about a week before exhausting her leave time, Lochren went into early labor and had to be rushed to the hospital because she was about to give birth six weeks prematurely. Physicians were able to stop her contractions but Lochren remained in the hospital for about nine days. Lochren was released from the hospital on or about December 10, 2000. However, two days later she had to return to the hospital because it again appeared as though she would give birth prematurely.
89. On December 15, 2000, Lochren gave birth to a baby girl.
90. Due to the financial hardship of Lochren’s forced unpaid leave, she and her husband sold a condominium they owned on December 15, 2000, as they were unable to make required payments.
91. Lochren is scheduled to return to work on September 7, 2001. Patricia O’Brien
92. Plaintiff PATRICIA O’BRIEN is twenty-seven years old and a resident of Mount Sinai, New York, and is the mother of three boys, twins born in 1997 and a son born in December 2000. She holds an Associate’s Degree from Suffolk Community College.
93. O’Brien has been a Suffolk County Police Officer since 1998. She has been a patrol officer in the Sixth Precinct in Coram, New York, since September 1999. She received a Departmental Commendation in 2000.
94. On June 2, 2000, O’Brien provided her commanding officer, Lieutenant Dennis Miley, with a doctor’s note stating that she was pregnant, with a due date of December 30, 2000 and requesting that she be assigned to duties sedentary in nature such as a desk or administrative position.
95. Upon receiving her note, Lt. Miley asked O’Brien if she was prepared to go home. O’Brien replied that if she was ordered to do so, she would have to leave her job.
96. An officer who was working overtime at the desk shift that day volunteered to go on patrol so that O’Brien could fill the desk slot. Lt. Miley gave her permission to work at the desk for the day.
97. O’Brien began working at the precinct desk assignment. After about 30 to 40 minutes, O’Brien was ordered by Inspector Nicholas Mango to go home.
98. Upon information and belief, another officer was asked to work overtime at the desk slot out of which O’Brien had been ordered.
99. O’Brien has been off the job since June 2, 2000.
100. Forced to stay off the job, O’Brien utilized approximately 31 1/2 days of accrued sick leave, 17 days of accrued vacation leave, and three days of accrued personal leave. O’Brien exhausted all accrued leave time on or about August 18, 2000. Her forced leave subsequent to August 18, 2000 was unpaid. Once on unpaid leave, O’Brien did not accrue longevity towards retirement or seniority.
101. O’Brien gave birth on December 22, 2000.
102. She returned to work on May 1, 2000.
103. O’Brien and her husband plan to have more children. However, they have delayed doing so because she depleted her leave time during her last pregnancy and anticipates having to go out on leave during her pregnancy as a result of Defendants’ light duty policy. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
104. Plaintiffs filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC New York District Office on June 23, 2000, alleging that SCPD’s refusal to permit them to work at light duty assignments constituted unlawful discrimination based on sex and pregnancy.
105. On or about March 13, 2001, Plaintiffs each received right to sue letters from the EEOC. The EEOC had not issued any determination as to whether the charges had probable cause. Copies of the right to sue letters are attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
106. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 above.
107. Defendants excluded Plaintiffs from light duty assignments for which they were qualified while providing such assignments to other employees with medical conditions incurred off the job, employees with medical conditions incurred on the job, employees subject to disciplinary actions, employees working overtime, and others.
108. Defendants’ actions constituted intentional and illegal disparate treatment discrimination against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
109. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to a declaration that their rights have been violated, back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
110. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 above.
111. During the periods in which Plaintiffs sought and were refused light duty assignments, Defendants provided such assignments to officers with medical conditions incurred on the job, medical conditions incurred off the job prior to April 2000, officers subject to disciplinary actions and others.
112. Defendants’ actions with regard to the assignment of light duty positions created an illegal disparate impact on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
113. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to a declaration that their rights have been and violated, back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
114. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 above.
115. Pursuant to their current light duty policy, Defendants privilege officers with medical conditions incurred on the job, officers subject to disciplinary actions and others, with the provision of light duty assignments, while prohibiting light duty assignments for officers with medical conditions arising off duty, most notably pregnancy. Defendants’ current practice, policy and actions illegally discriminate against pregnant women on both disparate treatment and disparate impact grounds in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
116. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the illegal and discriminatory conduct alleged herein and requiring Defendants to adopt a light duty assignment policy that treats pregnant women on an equal basis as other officers similarly situated in regard to their ability to work. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
117. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 above.
118. Defendants excluded Plaintiffs from light duty assignments for which they were qualified while providing such assignments to other employees with medical conditions incurred off the job, employees with medical conditions incurred on the job, employees subject to disciplinary actions, employees working overtime, and others.
119. Defendants’ actions constituted intentional and illegal disparate treatment discrimination against Plaintiffs on the basis of sex in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(a).
120. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to a declaration that their rights have been and violated, back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys fees. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
121. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 above.
122. During the periods in which Plaintiffs sought and were refused light duty assignments, Defendants provided such assignments to officers with medical conditions incurred on the job, medical conditions incurred off the job prior to April 2000, officers subject to disciplinary actions and others.
123. Defendants’ actions with regard to the assignment of light duty positions created an illegal disparate impact on the basis of sex in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(a).
124. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to a declaration that their rights have been violated, back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
125. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 above.
126. Pursuant to their current light duty policy, Defendants privilege officers with medical conditions incurred on the job, officers subject to disciplinary actions and others, with the provision of light duty assignments while prohibiting light duty assignments for officers with medical conditions arising off duty, most notably pregnancy. Defendants’ current practice, policy and actions illegally discriminate against pregnant women on both disparate treatment and disparate impact grounds in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §296(1)(a).
127. Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the illegal and discriminatory conduct alleged herein and requiring Defendants to adopt a light duty assignment policy that treats pregnant women on an equal basis as other officers similarly situated in regard to their ability to work. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (SARAH MACDERMOTT ONLY)
128. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 above.
129. Defendants’ agents ordered Sarah MacDermott off the job upon learning she was pregnant, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(g).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court: Assume jurisdiction over this matter; Issue a declaratory judgment declaring that Defendants have violated the civil rights of Officers Lochren, MacDermott and O’Brien as guaranteed by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(1). Issue a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the illegal and discriminatory conduct alleged herein and requiring Defendants to adopt a light duty assignment policy that treats pregnant women on an equal basis as other officers similarly situated in regard to their ability to work; Award equitable relief to Officers Lochren, MacDermott and O’Brien in the form of incidental monetary relief, back pay, attorneys’ fees and costs; Award compensatory damages to Officers Lochren, MacDermott and O’Brien in an amount to be determined at trial; Order the defendants to pay attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k); and Grant such other and further relief as it deems just and proper under the circumstances. DATED:June 7, 2001 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION By:____________________________ REBEKAH DILLER (RD-7791) CHRISTOPHER DUNN (CD-3991) ART EISENBERG (AE-2012) DONNA LIEBERMAN (DL-1268) 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 344-3005 ROBERT M. ROSEN (RMR-5280) DAVID M. FISH (DMF-7606) Rosen, Leff, Esqs. 105 Cathedral Avenue Hempstead, NY 11550 (516) 485-3500 LENORA LAPIDUS American Civil Liberties Union Women’s Rights Project 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 549-2668 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS