LABOR AND INDUSTRY
Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 1
Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:24 am Post subject: RULING ON RENALIN 1999 WORKER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 28, 1999 <
><
>OSHA discrimination case decided against Miller-Dwan<
><
>An administrative law judge has found that Miller-Dwan Medical Center in Duluth, Minn., discriminated against its pregnant employee when the medical center placed her on an involuntary unpaid leave of absence because she declined to continue working with a chemical called Renalin, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry announced today. At issue was whether the employee had a reasonable belief that she had been assigned to work in an unsafe or unhealthful manner with a hazardous substance, and if so, whether she was discharged or discriminated against by her employer when exercising her rights under the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act.<
><
>The decision stated that the manufacturer of Renalin, Minntech Corporation, had issued a 1993 letter recommending that, although no studies existed regarding the potential reproductive hazards of Renalin, as a prudent precaution, exposure to Renalin and all other such chemicals should be avoided during pregnancy. Minntech also stated in a subsequent letter that it did not permit its own pregnant employees to work with Renalin. Based primarily upon these letters, the advice of her physician, and the health problems she and her coworkers experienced while working with Renalin during their pregnancies, the employee refused to perform certain job tasks for which the exposure to Renalin was the greatest. The employee believed her exposure to Renalin while performing these job tasks might cause her to miscarry or deliver prematurely. The administrative law judge decided the employee had acted in good faith, that her belief she was in imminent danger of serious physical harm was reasonable and that Minntech's recommendation was an "unequivocal warning which no pregnant woman, concerned for her unborn child, could afford to ignore."<
><
>Under the Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Act, an employee acting in good faith has the right to refuse to work under conditions the employee reasonably believes presents to him or her an imminent danger of serious injury or death. An employer may not discharge or take any other negative employment action against an employee who has exercised this right if the employee requests that the employer correct the condition the employee believes is hazardous and the condition remains uncorrected.<
><
>This information can be made available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print or audiotape.<
><
><
>-- ### --<
><
>Contact: James Honerman<
>Phone: (651) 284-5313<
>
******************************************************
Jahphia
Joined: 10 May 2003
Posts: 10
Posted: Sat May 10, 2003 3:37 am Post subject: duluth case
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
finally a settlement. that sure took a long time. that baby must be almost 4 years old by now!! that was a big win for the employee!!!! congratulations to the the employee and a big thank you for justice!!!! Mr Honerman, i commend you! Minnesota is a tough state for worker compensation awards and settlements! hopefully employees will be a little safer and the patients will reap the benefits of better care. one battle won, but the war still goes on...keep up the good work folks!!
