According to news reports, Paul T. Reid of Shook Hardy and Bacon law firm was suspended and
subsequently disciplined for his questionable actions over the continuance request by his
opposing counsel. The occurrence ultimately resulted in legislation that would offer continuance
when needed due to pregnancy.

The law, Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.570, was a victory against such discrimination in Florida, but
unfortunately, inexcusable behavior under the same or similar circumstances continues in other
states. In fact, an expecting female litigant in New York calls her experience downright
“horrific”:

Ms. Stacy Makhnevich was pregnant and involved in a civil debt collection action. The trial took
place over 5 days and lasted long hours – from about 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily. The grueling
schedule of the trial began to negatively affect her. She reports that she was belittled and
screamed at when she would request a restroom break, and then would be denied the opportunity
to go, noting she was forced to continue with a full bladder.

Her physical limitations and mental and emotional stress of being treated so poorly left her
terrified and distraught as she tried to continue presenting her case in the courtroom. By this
point, she not only needed to concentrate on the work at hand, but do so during unethical,
inhumane treatment that left her extremely worried that she might lose control of her bladder in
public or be humiliated once more for a simple request to use the bathroom.

By day four of the trial, she found herself completely unable to concentrate. She had been
shamed mercilessly in the last few days, and the physical ramifications were taking a toll. She
began to experience a pounding sound of blood rushing to her head. She was feeling so unwell,
she began to worry about her well-being and the lasting negative effects the horrible treatment
she was experiencing could have on her pregnancy.

She visited her doctor and was horrified to learn that he suspected a miscarriage could be
looming. He strongly recommended that she begin bed rest immediately. In a desperate hope to
avoid a devastating miscarriage, she asked the court to postpone further hearings for 4 weeks.
She had also provided to the court a note from her high-risk obstetrician indicating her
pregnancy and excused absence.

However, she was subjected to more of the unacceptable behavior she had endured over the trial
week. The opposing attorney, Gregory Bougopoulos of Novick Edelstein Pomerantz law firm ,
in the trial immediately objected to her medical note; the judge initiated a line of invasive
questioning regarding the particulars of her gynecological and obstetrical condition to determine
why she couldn’t remain on schedule with the hearing. She had to answer in front of all of those
present.

She would learn that the judge’s decision would be that no rescheduling would take place. The
expectant mom-to-be now had to make a decision that no woman should have to make – to put
herself and unborn child in potential danger or lose her case by being marked as “noncompliant”
or “in default” by not showing up for court.

In such a case, medical diagnosis and interpretation should default to the medical professionals
who are trained extensively to take care of mother and baby, both of whom deserve ethical
treatment. Anyone else without a medical degree or experience in obstetrics cannot possibly
speak to what is safe for a mother and her unborn baby. Society certainly would understand a
football coach granting time for a player to recover from a heart attack before sending him back
on the field for an intensive training session. Yet, pregnant women in New York who are told
they are high risk for miscarriage are treated as though they aren’t worth a few extra weeks to
ensure the life they are growing inside of them has a chance to survive.

To disregard the health of a baby in utero by refusing to grant a continuance is a form of child
endangerment, especially when the medical professional providing care has reason to believe a
problem may exist and has communicated that concern to the patient and documented it on
paper.

Aside from the physical damage, there are emotional and mental concerns for a pregnant woman
who learns she may be experiencing a loss of her child. A miscarriage is not just a medical
condition. It’s the end of a life that a parent has already started to cherish. The physical pain as
well as the emotional pain of the possibility of loss and humiliation of discussing her personal
health concerns with male parties has subjected her to unethical treatment she did not deserve.
The attorney, Gregory Bougopoulos of Novick Edelstein Pomerantz law firm, who opposed the
rescheduling accommodations was never reprimanded. New York State Division of Human
Rights stopped their investigation into civil rights violation by this state judge, citing lack of
jurisdiction over the court system and state judges and inability to enforce.

There are hundreds of pregnant and disabled females making appearances in court every day in
New York as attorneys or pro se female litigators. It is tragic and embarrassing that women,
pregnant women and women with high-risk pregnancies, are continued to be treated like this in
New York.
How is this sort of suffering allowed in New York when it was so clearly identified as
wrongdoing and handled effectively in Florida.

Press release: Nisha Patel nprnewsonline@gmail