No jury duty for nursing moms

September 2, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
According to a recent article from the National Law Journal, more and more states have passed laws exempting nursing mothers from jury service. Indiana isn’t one of those states, although we have a new law in effect regarding nursing mothers at work. Under Indiana Jury Rule 7, judges can authorize the deferral of jury duty if the person summoned can show a hardship, extreme inconvenience, or necessity for not serving. Also, each county may have different explanations of who can be excused from jury duty – yet no county specifies nursing mothers.

So, it’s up to the judge to decide whether an Indiana mother who is nursing is experiencing a hardship, inconvenience, or necessity to be excused. If it’s an understanding judge, he or she may excuse the mother and defer her service, and a law exempting nursing mothers would be unnecessary. However, if the judge doesn’t view breastfeeding as a necessity or extreme inconvenience, perhaps a law would be a good idea. But whether nursing is a valid excuse to defer jury duty is up to the General Assembly to decide.

Some women could make a good argument that breastfeeding children is a necessity and should be a valid reason to defer jury duty, especially if they end up on a jury that is sequestered for days or even weeks. However, some women are able to breastfeed their children with little interruption in their lives outside of the home. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, recently told People magazine that she finds time to breastfeed in the middle of the night. If a politician traveling around the country campaigning can still nurse, can’t a mother who has been called to serve on a jury?
  • Trying to balance breastfeeding with jury duty is a challenge I doubt even Sarah Palin would be able to handle!
    For starters, most courts would not allow an infant to be present with the mother. This leaves the option of pumping. Pray tell, WHERE would a mother be able to pump, given that courtrooms are not set up to accommodate nursing mothers as many workplaces are. She would most likely have to pump in a restroom... How many of you would like to eat a meal prepared in a BATHROOM?!
    In addition to the constraints of finding a place to nurse, another problem arises with timing. What happens when a mother needs to nurse and can\'t? She could end up leaking, causing her embarassment, or worse, she could end up in pain. Nursing women who can\'t express their milk when needed often get serious infections in their breasts and must seek medical treatment.
    Bottom line, then, WHY put a mother and baby through all of this when she can be allowed serve on a jury at a later time? Do the courts really want a nursing mother in their juries when they may be in pain?
    Also, Is it appropriate that Indiana state law currently allows deferral of nursing mothers to be decided by the whim of a jury clerk or a judge who may or may not have any knowledge in this area that is not in their primary field of knowledge...

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?