Pregnant chemist forced to keep working in the lab

[WHteam]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My wife is a chemist working in a pharmaceutical company. Her laboratory contains numerous toxic chemicals that are know to cause birth defects. They have a sign (because of prop 65) in front of every door that says the lab contains chemical that are know to cause birth defect. When we find out that she is pregnant, she asked (verbally) to transfer to other jobs that do not require her work with the chemicals and to be in the same room where the chemicals are kept. We also have a doctor's note advising her to not work in the lab for the entire duration of the pregnancy. However, her HR department refuse to let her out of the chemistry lab and are forcing her to back to the chemistry lab. The HR department told her that the doctor's note is only a suggestion and they don't have to comply. There are other jobs available that she can work on, such as patent writing, which she is working on right now. There are also other labs within the company that do not contain the hazardous chemicals where she can work.

What options do we have so that the HR department will let my wife out of the chemistry lab? Thank you

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My wife is a chemist working in a pharmaceutical company. Her laboratory contains numerous toxic chemicals that are know to cause birth defects. They have a sign (because of prop 65) in front of every door that says the lab contains chemical that are know to cause birth defect. When we find out that she is pregnant, she asked (verbally) to transfer to other jobs that do not require her work with the chemicals and to be in the same room where the chemicals are kept. We also have a doctor's note advising her to not work in the lab for the entire duration of the pregnancy. However, her HR department refuse to let her out of the chemistry lab and are forcing her to back to the chemistry lab. The HR department told her that the doctor's note is only a suggestion and they don't have to comply. There are other jobs available that she can work on, such as patent writing, which she is working on right now. There are also other labs within the company that do not contain the hazardous chemicals where she can work.

What options do we have so that the HR department will let my wife out of the chemistry lab? Thank you

Just curious - did your wife discuss this issue with her employer before she got pregnant? Did she discuss options?

 

[pattytx]

Does FMLA apply?

 

[KmanStuck]

Drug companies have many types of chemicals that can be hazardous, including chemicals that have unknown possible effects.

The company should have GMPs for the handling of all their chemicals in the laboratory.

Teratogens, carcinogens, and drugs should be handled in fume hoods.

Your wife should know if the chemicals are being handled properly.

And yes, if handled improperly, birth defects may be possible. This has happened before with drug companies (and other companies) that do not follow GMP/OSHA regulations.

If GMPs & OSHA regulations are being adhered to there should be minimal risk; many women work in the drug laboratories when pregnant and have perfectly healthy children.

So, my question would be: do they handle the various chemicals correctly? Your wife should know the answer to this question. Also, does your wife have a BS, MS, PhD? And can she recognize when chemicals are being handled correctly (does she understand her company's GMPs & OSHA regulations?).

She may wish to speak to the chemical hygiene officer & safety officer of the company and ask them for their opinion about the general adherence to OSHA and GMP guidelines.

I have been both a chemical hygiene officer & safety officer with several companies. Some companies give these people great authority & others do not (they are mandated by OSHA to be present ~ usually just another duty of a full time employee but can also be a full time job & only responsibility of an employee, depends on the company).

If your wife is not comfortable with working with chemicals and the company is fine with GMP/OSHA regulations then your wife has a choice of resigning, taking a leave of absence, or continue to work there. It looks like the company does not wish to move her (and I know of no drug company that does this ~ doing so would almost be an admission of not following GMP/OSHA guidelines I would think).

If the company is not following GMPs/OSHA guidelines then pick up the phone and call OSHA &/or the FDA. OSHA will respond quickly ; FDA may not respond at all...your state may also have its own version of these federal agencies.

Not all drug companies are alike; some work with OTCs one one end while others do pure research. Some have better reputations than others (some are stellar & some are horrible).

And yes, I am a chemist & have experience in the drug industry.

 

[lukeroberts]

I'm also a chemist at a major pharma company. I think you and your wife are being a bit too cautious. There are chemicals everywhere in your life, at least in the lab she has protections against them (gloves, coat, respirators, etc).

May I ask what chemical or set of chemicals she is afraid of being exposed to?
You can't just say "Hey I work in a lab, I can't be near 'chemicals'".
She needs specifics on the chemicals by referring to the MSDS for each one. This document (kept onsite by law) will explicitly detail the risks for pregnancy, you take THIS to your HR and go from there.

 

[KmanStuck]

I'm also a chemist at a major pharma company. I think you and your wife are being a bit too cautious. There are chemicals everywhere in your life, at least in the lab she has protections against them (gloves, coat, respirators, etc).

May I ask what chemical or set of chemicals she is afraid of being exposed to?
You can't just say "Hey I work in a lab, I can't be near 'chemicals'".
She needs specifics on the chemicals by referring to the MSDS for each one. This document (kept onsite by law) will explicitly detail the risks for pregnancy, you take THIS to your HR and go from there.

My Sax reference is great for looking at the effects of various compounds too.

 

[pattytx]

All that's fine, but we need the OP to come back and answer the questions previously posed.

 

[xylene]

Ask if she can take a leave for the first trimester?

That is when the real bulk of the risk is anyway.

Once the fetus is 'hardened-off' a bit the risks of exposure to low levels of chemicals is much much less.

 

[WHteam]

Thank you for responding. I really appreciate all your advices and opinions.

My wife is a Ph.D synthetic chemist and no, we did not discuss the pregnancy issue with the company before she got pregnant. We are worry that even a hint that my wife wanted to get pregnant will affect her status in the company negatively. FMLA applies.

The lab is relatively well ventilated and should be in compliance with OSHA and other safety regulation (that's why she continues to work there).

The chemicals that my wife works with are many. If you are familiar with synthetic chemistry in pharmaceutical companies, the variety of chemicals that they use are very large. Some of the most frequently used chemicals are solvents, such as Hexane, acetonitrile, methanol, Tetrahydrofuran, toluene, dichloromethane, etc.. We've checked MSDS, and other government published toxicity report, and they are not good for developing fetus at ALL concentration.

I know the safety equipment and ventilation are relatively advance these days. I know that her chemistry lab are pretty safe to work in (I also know that a nuclear power plant and radiology lab are also pretty safe for normal adults to work in). But solvent, by their nature, are volatile, especially in high volume. I understand that we all deal with risks and chemicals everyday, but nobody deals with more toxic chemicals (both in quantity and variety) than synthetic chemists. I also know other chemists continue to work in the lab and their babies seems to be OK. However, when a chemist works with solvents in close proximity, no ventilation and safety equipment will fully prevent the chemical from reaching the chemist. This is just common sense. We are considering gas masks, but there are no gas masks that are proven to prevent all the chemicals that I mentioned above. And how the reduced level of oxygen from wearing the gas mask for prolonged period of time affects the baby is unknown (probably not good).

I admit that we are probably a bit more cautious. But just think about what we are dealing with. Either you work in a environment filled with a large variety of toxic chemicals and risk harming your baby, or do what I consider common sense, remove yourself away from hundreds of known toxic chemicals for the duration of the pregnancy.

Being in compliance with OSHA does not guarantee that the worker are free of chemical exposure and harm-free to the fetus. All that mean is that the company will not be liable in case something happens. We have absolutely no interest in suing her company. All we want is a healthy baby. I hope you all can understand.

We know that she can negotiate to work away from the bench until after the first trimester, take a leave of absence, take disability leaves, or even quit her job, but I don't think a women has to choose between career or pregnancy. There are many jobs that a highly trained chemist can do away from chemicals for several months and I believe it is by law that the company has to at least consider other options before forcing my wife back to lab or stay home. I know that the company does not have to create a position just for her. But I believe that if a position away from the bench is available (assuming that she can perform the new job adequately), they have to honor her request for the transfer, especially from the advice of her physicians.

Again, thank you for responding.

 

[tranquility]

The pregnancy is not preventing her from doing her job, so I don't believe it is a disability under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. While the employer can accommodate the OP's wife, I don't believe they have to. In fact, I'm not sure that, if the wife wanted to say in the lab, the company could force her to work on patents unless there was a clear danger more than an inchoate fear.

Info edit:

I don't think a women has to choose between career or pregnancy.

She doesn't. She can have her pregnancy and her career. By using "common sense", you pretty much admit there is no quantified risk. She is choosing between here career and her fears. That may be reasonable, or it may not. A doctor's note is not going to be enough.

 

[xylene]

Realize: You are asking them to admit it isn't safe.

If the lab is safe, then saying they your wife needs to work work elsewhere is an admission that it isn't safe.

That concerns more than just your wife's situation.

We know that she can negotiate to work away from the bench until after the first trimester, take a leave of absence, take disability leaves, or even quit her job, but I don't think a women has to choose between career or pregnancy.

Bluntly - stop being so co-pregnant.

Stop being "discriminated" on behalf of your wife.

You have just stated that every reasonable prospect for safeguarding the fetus above and beyond what is legally required is a possibility.

That sounds like a good company. Not one that is forcing anything.

Your and your wife seem to be overstating risks, the realistic calculation of which will not be zero, even if your wife did not leave the house.

All we want is a healthy baby.

Just a little reassurance: Most birth defects are of inherited genetic origin. So it is only 1/2 of each parents fault.

And you do know your wife's toxic exposures might have cooked her gametes a little too.

But that is what ultrasound and amniocentesis are for.

I truly believe that you and your wife are going to have a fine baby, whole and healthy. And so should you. Don't be so nervous. You could go crazy. We humans are more durable than you give us credit.

People without post graduate educations, even those people who don't know the difference between a polar and a non-polar solvent, actually manage to have babies too.

Good luck and I hope your kid learns something in the lab.

 

[WHteam]

Thank you for all your responses.

Let me try to clarify my rationale with an analogy. For example, drinking alcohol is not very bad (and sometime is argued to be good) for health. However, alcohol consumption is strongly advised against during pregnancy. Same thing with lifting heavy weight. Therefore, something that are safe for normal adults are not necessary safe for pregnant women. I believe no one can disagree with me on this. Just because the lab follows OSHA requirement does not guarantee safety for pregnant women. OSHA does not require the lab to be safe for pregnant women. I believe admitting something is not safe for pregnant women does not equal to admitting not safe for everybody.

I know I cannot eliminate all risk, and that is not what I am trying to do. My goal here is to minimize unnecessary risk. Some of you may be thinking "chemicals, big deals, we all breathing some forms of chemicals everyday". Some of you may also be thinking that the risk seems low, why worry so much. But I am thinking, what is an acceptable risk level to chemical exposure? It's like second hand smoke or X-ray exposure, wouldn't it make sense to avoid it during pregnancy? What is an acceptable level of second hand smoke and X-ray. Small level of second hand smoke or X-ray exposure is probably safe, but the general practice is to advise pregnant women to avoid them. For example, if exposure to unknown substance increases birth defects from 0.01% to 0.1%. The overall percentage is still pretty small, but you just increased your chance of birth defect by 10 fold. Is that an acceptable risk? This is what I am trying to do, minimize obvious and unnecessary risk. I believe working in a chemistry lab obviously posses a higher risk to pregnant women, and I don't think we should take this unnecessary risk.

It seems like we may not be able to avoid this risk and people seem quite unsympathetic about this.

 

[WHteam]

by the way xylene,

Thank you for your good wishes.

 

[CSO286]

Thank you for all your responses.

Let me try to clarify my rationale with an analogy. For example, drinking alcohol is not very bad (and sometime is argued to be good) for health. However, alcohol consumption is strongly advised against during pregnancy. Same thing with lifting heavy weight. Therefore, something that are safe for normal adults are not necessary safe for pregnant women. I believe no one can disagree with me on this. Just because the lab follows OSHA requirement does not guarantee safety for pregnant women. OSHA does not require the lab to be safe for pregnant women. I believe admitting something is not safe for pregnant women does not equal to admitting not safe for everybody.

I know I cannot eliminate all risk, and that is not what I am trying to do. My goal here is to minimize unnecessary risk. Some of you may be thinking "chemicals, big deals, we all breathing some forms of chemicals everyday". Some of you may also be thinking that the risk seems low, why worry so much. But I am thinking, what is an acceptable risk level to chemical exposure? It's like second hand smoke or X-ray exposure, wouldn't it make sense to avoid it during pregnancy? What is an acceptable level of second hand smoke and X-ray. Small level of second hand smoke or X-ray exposure is probably safe, but the general practice is to advise pregnant women to avoid them. For example, if exposure to unknown substance increases birth defects from 0.01% to 0.1%. The overall percentage is still pretty small, but you just increased your chance of birth defect by 10 fold. Is that an acceptable risk? This is what I am trying to do, minimize obvious and unnecessary risk. I believe working in a chemistry lab obviously posses a higher risk to pregnant women, and I don't think we should take this unnecessary risk.

It seems like we may not be able to avoid this risk and people seem quite unsympathetic about this.

I follow your logic, but again, legally, the employer is not required to accomodate her condition.

(Re the bolded: Perhaps I shouldn't have worked long term care and EMS while I was pregnant? Heavy-duty people moving there... ... ...)

 

[tranquility]

It seems like we may not be able to avoid this risk and people seem quite unsympathetic about this.

No. I think:

The pregnancy is not preventing her from doing her job, so I don't believe it is a disability under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. While the employer can accommodate the OP's wife, I don't believe they have to. In fact, I'm not sure that, if the wife wanted to say in the lab, the company could force her to work on patents unless there was a clear danger more than an inchoate fear.

which means I believe the lab has no legal duty to accommodate your wishes absent a clear showing of danger. As to the level of risk:

By using "common sense", you pretty much admit there is no quantified risk. She is choosing between here career and her fears. That may be reasonable, or it may not. A doctor's note is not going to be enough.