Woman forced to wear diapers to work
Wins $150,000 settlement
A woman who claimed that she had to wear adult diapers to her job with a construction company because it would not provide portable toilets was granted a $150,000 settlement in a gender-discrimination suit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Four other female employees of Danella Construction Corp., of Plymouth Meeting, who also claimed that they were discriminated against because of their sex, split an additional $50,000, according to a consent decree filed in federal court yesterday, which is pending judicial approval.
Lisa Drozdowski, 37, of Levittown, who began working as a flagger for Danella in 2005, said that although men at construction sites would urinate in holes or behind backhoes and trucks, she was sometimes had to walk a quarter mile to her car and drive 5 to 10 minutes to find the nearest restroom.
If other female flaggers were present, they would shield each other from passing cars and co-workers with blankets while they relieved themselves, she said.
But several times, while Drozdowski was the only woman on a job, by the time she was granted a bathroom break, it was too late and she had urinated on herself, she said.
A single mother of three at the time that she was employed with the company, between 2005 and 2006, Drozdowski said that she couldn't quit because she had to support her family.
So, she said, she started wearing Depends adult diapers to work every day.
"It was humiliating," she said. "But I needed the job."
Drozdowski also said that when she asked to be promoted to a laborer's position she was told by management that the company did not hire female laborers.
When she complained about both issues, she said, the company stopped giving her work. A retaliation claim was also included in the suit brought by the EEOC.
In a statement provided by Danella's lawyer, Sandra A. Girifalco, the company flatly denied the claims and said that it has always provided restrooms at its work sites.
"No one was ever denied a job because of their gender," the statement said. "No one, male or female, was ever denied the opportunity to go to a restroom when the need to go was known."
According to the statement, the company entered into the consent degree to end "expensive and distracting" litigation.
"The amount [Danella] agreed to pay took into account the cost of continuing the litigation and was far less than the EEOC initially sought," the statement said.
