Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Where Everybody Knows You're Numb -> SunnyliesaBunch -> and we have our institutionalized sexism today too!
Post Info TOPIC: and we have our institutionalized sexism today too!
Anonymous

Date:
RE: and we have our institutionalized sexism today too!
Permalink   

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

 

. Everyone assumed it was illegal or against some moral code to fire a pregnant woman, she said."

---------------------------------

That last line seems an assumption of preferential treatment BECAUSE one is pregnant, which would oddly seem discriminatory towards men, unable to become pregnant, no?

well yes, but the key word there is assumption. the reality is something else. i do agree with what youve written below, that any layoffs should be across the board or by some more than arbitrary standard and if an older worker or a pregnant worker falls into that space then so be it. but the concerning factor here is that when faced with laying off people, corporations are looking to lose the older workers and the pregnant workers which nullifies the protections in place. the companies arent going to say we are laying you off because youre older and perceived to be less "productive" or pregnant and likely to take time off after the birth. the reasons those protections were put in place were specifically to counter those kinds of reasons. if women are to ever catch up on the career ladder there have to be ways for them to meet family demands and be in the workforce without being penalized for the time needed. the elder worker aspect seems to be across gender bounds and falls into the stratification aspect of discrimination.  this morning on my way into work i was listening to a local talk radio show on npr and the question asked was are you a feminist and what does that mean to you. the answers were very revealing one woman said she had no use for feminism since we are all doing very well thank you and she preferred to be called a humanist believing that we are all equal and then proceeded to state that the country is not ready for a female president. nor was she apparently since she liked hillary but didnt vote for her. she didnt think of her internalized sexism as sexism. another young woman called in and said she was a feminist and what that meant to her was that she had choices and that her choice was to stay home with her kids while they were young. she stated that shed never had any experience with sexual discrimination yada yada yada. there were other callers with similar refrains but these illustrate the new narrative of those in power.  defuse the power of women and minorities by changing the discourse, villifying feminist principles, allowing the continued stratification of those who might really gain equal opportunites if we were to seriously look at all of the issues involved rather than have people stake out their own piece of the pie. a case in point was that on several calls the bra burning comment was made and made by women. a womens studies prof called in to remind all that that event never happened, that it was a conflating of the miss american protest and the burning of draft cards. the underlying narrative is one of dismissal of feminist concerns, a haughty look at those people arent they silly or crazy stance. this is very similar to the derisive feminazi or using manhater or its sister word lesbian as a pejorative when discussing feminism.  the real facts are that the young woman caller who thinks that discrimination is a thing of the past and is blithely staying home with her young children faces a 50% chance of having a reality check in the near future. if she divorces after say 8 years at home until the youngest of her children is in school full time, she will find her skill set has become outdated, her "worth" in the job market is severely diminished and the outcome of her divorce settlement will now be based on a 50/50 division of childcare making spousa support or child support a no go for her. oh, and the home will be sold and the proceeds divided 50/50. her spouse who has stayed in the work force will have had no such penalties extracted and will be better off than when he/she was in the marriage/partnership.  we dont value women and we dont value children and we and this is a societal collective we dont want real equality or we would have dealth with the who cares for the children and what is it worth question a long time ago.   these things will happen whether the mother in question is in a lesbian relationship or a het one. my main point here is that we all need to be aware of these underlying narratives of separation or villification when we think about the realities of all sorts of discrimination against women.



I would hate to see us ever get to the place where one's sexual preference, skin color, religious affiliation or state of pregnancy grants them immunity from job loss, is all, you know? Then, we do get into the oft touted "preferential treatment" issue.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Friday 3rd of April 2009 07:32:20 AM

 



 


Affirmative Action.

 



__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:




Sure, and I do agree that laws should be upheld in this instance. My point was that there ARE federal laws in place protecting this group of people, and that's not true for GLBT people yet.

and im not so sure thats a bad thing at this point. having this fall under state law seems to have driven the conversation above ground and allowed those states who are more "progressive" to put these rights into action and the list grows yearly. if this had been strictly a federal deal i doubt that wed see these protections anytime in our lifetimes.  eventually it will be federal law, in the meantime we need to focus on making that list of states and cities longer until its the law in all 50 states.

My experience with the state and local laws is that they're full of holes, basically.

yep and as the article points out so are federal protections. it still puts the burden of proof on the employee to prove discrimination rather than the employer to prove that it didnt occur.


 At a hospital where a friend works, they just eliminated 23% of the staff based on seemingly no criteria at all, except to cut 23% of the employees. I'm just not sure how you could "prove" untoward discrimination here these days, with all this wild slashing of budgets going on.

id hope that there would be some seniority factor involved. if job performance were at issue hopefully it would have been addressed prior to the layoffs rather than using performance to hide real consideratons like age or medical history or pregnancy. im dealing with this at work right now. 300 will be laid off this month and weve been discussing how it will be handled in my office. ive been a grant writing idiot for the last 8 weeks and still who knows if ill be able to bring in enough to prevent any layoffs in my dept given the overall institutional budget. im low woman on the seniority pole tho so i am especially worried. if it is me that goes id not think it discrimination since it would seem fair to me as the last hired. if they chose my coworker who is of child bearing age with small kids instead of me i would think it discrimination.  we are having a dept meeting next week to figure this all out. right now we are leaning toward changing our hours of operation which will cause some community disruption. laying off anyone on our small staff might result in this happening anyway since there wont be enough staff to cover.

Is it "right" to target someone on maternity, or family medical leave? Of course not. Should those people be immune from cuts which impact their co-workers? Not in my opinion.

agreed

I wonder if it's the women who are losing their jobs because of the larger employment discrimination against them which, generally speaking, allows them to rise no further than middle-management -- typically it's the middle managers who are cut first in situations like this because they've typically been around a long time, and two could be hired to replace them with the same expenditure, and their import to the company is vague at best. Rather than focusing on who's getting fired, I think better efforts might be placed on who is forbidden from rising above that glass ceiling in the first place.

and i agree with this too. how do we get it into the discourse tho when the prevailing narrative is one of theres no discrimination everything is groovy world?





 



__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

 

. Everyone assumed it was illegal or against some moral code to fire a pregnant woman, she said."

---------------------------------

That last line seems an assumption of preferential treatment BECAUSE one is pregnant, which would oddly seem discriminatory towards men, unable to become pregnant, no?

well yes, but the key word there is assumption. the reality is something else. i do agree with what youve written below, that any layoffs should be across the board or by some more than arbitrary standard and if an older worker or a pregnant worker falls into that space then so be it. but the concerning factor here is that when faced with laying off people, corporations are looking to lose the older workers and the pregnant workers which nullifies the protections in place. the companies arent going to say we are laying you off because youre older and perceived to be less "productive" or pregnant and likely to take time off after the birth. the reasons those protections were put in place were specifically to counter those kinds of reasons. if women are to ever catch up on the career ladder there have to be ways for them to meet family demands and be in the workforce without being penalized for the time needed. the elder worker aspect seems to be across gender bounds and falls into the stratification aspect of discrimination.  this morning on my way into work i was listening to a local talk radio show on npr and the question asked was are you a feminist and what does that mean to you. the answers were very revealing one woman said she had no use for feminism since we are all doing very well thank you and she preferred to be called a humanist believing that we are all equal and then proceeded to state that the country is not ready for a female president. nor was she apparently since she liked hillary but didnt vote for her. she didnt think of her internalized sexism as sexism. another young woman called in and said she was a feminist and what that meant to her was that she had choices and that her choice was to stay home with her kids while they were young. she stated that shed never had any experience with sexual discrimination yada yada yada. there were other callers with similar refrains but these illustrate the new narrative of those in power.  defuse the power of women and minorities by changing the discourse, villifying feminist principles, allowing the continued stratification of those who might really gain equal opportunites if we were to seriously look at all of the issues involved rather than have people stake out their own piece of the pie. a case in point was that on several calls the bra burning comment was made and made by women. a womens studies prof called in to remind all that that event never happened, that it was a conflating of the miss american protest and the burning of draft cards. the underlying narrative is one of dismissal of feminist concerns, a haughty look at those people arent they silly or crazy stance. this is very similar to the derisive feminazi or using manhater or its sister word lesbian as a pejorative when discussing feminism.  the real facts are that the young woman caller who thinks that discrimination is a thing of the past and is blithely staying home with her young children faces a 50% chance of having a reality check in the near future. if she divorces after say 8 years at home until the youngest of her children is in school full time, she will find her skill set has become outdated, her "worth" in the job market is severely diminished and the outcome of her divorce settlement will now be based on a 50/50 division of childcare making spousa support or child support a no go for her. oh, and the home will be sold and the proceeds divided 50/50. her spouse who has stayed in the work force will have had no such penalties extracted and will be better off than when he/she was in the marriage/partnership.  we dont value women and we dont value children and we and this is a societal collective we dont want real equality or we would have dealth with the who cares for the children and what is it worth question a long time ago.   these things will happen whether the mother in question is in a lesbian relationship or a het one. my main point here is that we all need to be aware of these underlying narratives of separation or villification when we think about the realities of all sorts of discrimination against women.



I would hate to see us ever get to the place where one's sexual preference, skin color, religious affiliation or state of pregnancy grants them immunity from job loss, is all, you know? Then, we do get into the oft touted "preferential treatment" issue.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Friday 3rd of April 2009 07:32:20 AM

 



 



__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

From the article Psych posted:


"...Some employers are using the economy as a pretense for laying off just one person, Ms. Grossman said. And very often that person is pregnant or the oldest employee on staff. The economy may be the legitimate cause or there may be discrimination.

Last year the number of pregnancy-based discrimination charges filed with the E.E.O.C. was up nearly 50 percent from a decade earlier, to a total of 6,285. That number seems likely to rise even higher this year.

At the WorkLife Law hot line run by the University of California Hastings College of the Law, where the phones seldom used to ring, a dozen calls a week are now coming in, according to Cynthia Calvert, deputy director of the Center for WorkLife Law. The free hot line (1-800-981-9495) gives legal information to parents and caregivers of children or elderly parents, who feel they are being discriminated against because of their family obligations.

Many of the callers, Ms. Calvert said, are pregnant women apprehensive that they may be targeted for layoffs, or pregnant women or women on maternity leave who were already let go.

Labor laws flimsy shield often comes as a shock to women. Last December, Sarah Feider, 39, suspected layoffs were imminent at her workplace a large publishing house in New York City. Citing her severance agreement, she insisted that the employer not be identified.

My friends were saying: Youre fine. No way would they lay you off,  Ms. Feider recalls. Not only was she seven months pregnant, but her husband had recently lost his job. Everyone assumed it was illegal or against some moral code to fire a pregnant woman, she said."

---------------------------------

That last line seems an assumption of preferential treatment BECAUSE one is pregnant, which would oddly seem discriminatory towards men, unable to become pregnant, no?

I would hate to see us ever get to the place where one's sexual preference, skin color, religious affiliation or state of pregnancy grants them immunity from job loss, is all, you know? Then, we do get into the oft touted "preferential treatment" issue.



-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Friday 3rd of April 2009 07:32:20 AM

__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

Psych Lit wrote:

 

Anonymous wrote:

To be sure, it is illegal to dismiss someone or refuse to hire her specifically because she is pregnant, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But few employers are foolish enough to cite pregnancy as the reason for firing or not hiring someone.

See? I read this far, and my head screams: "But you CAN fire someone because they're LGBorT, and even SAY so, and be protected!"

that depends on where they live. many places have sexual orientation as a part of their discrimination practices. from find law

Federal Law

Although a broad umbrella of federal laws protects people from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, and disability, those facing discrimination based on sexual orientation have largely been left out in the rain -- at least at the national level. There is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector -- although federal government workers are currently protected from such discrimination. (Attempts to pass a piece of federal legislation that would outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in private workplaces, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, have been unsuccessful to date.)


While I DO have sympathy for these women, they DO have, and have had for over forty years, federal protection against this kind of ... what's the word? "Abuse?" On the other hand, an employer can look you or me right in the eye and say: "We don't let queers work here" and THAT'S peachy-keen fine right now. Matter of priority for me, I guess, and frankly, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over the rights of a group who DO have legal rights before those who don't enjoy those same and equal RIGHTS, and I'd feel the same if I wasn't, or didn't realize I was lesbian. 

i think there are a lot of reasons to care. from the lesbian standpoint its important to remember that many lesbians have children. theres a lil baby boom going on around here in lesbianville. but consider for a moment that even when children are the result of het relationships or gay men adopting its not the men who are losing the jobs,  its the women. its part of a larger picture of discrimination. most women work these days even women with kids. its the rare family that can keep things together on one income. the other aspect of this is the separation of issues that we assume effect on sub category of women over another. what divides us weakens us. womens issues belong to all women regardless of sexual orientation.

 




Sure, and I do agree that laws should be upheld in this instance. My point was that there ARE federal laws in place protecting this group of people, and that's not true for GLBT people yet. My experience with the state and local laws is that they're full of holes, basically.  Also, frankly, in this economy, with jobs being cut wily nily, oftentimes randomly, and at all levels, I don't know that ANYONE has a "right" to keep their job. I presume the above applies to the private sector, yes? At a hospital where a friend works, they just eliminated 23% of the staff based on seemingly no criteria at all, except to cut 23% of the employees. I'm just not sure how you could "prove" untoward discrimination here these days, with all this wild slashing of budgets going on.  Is it "right" to target someone on maternity, or family medical leave? Of course not. Should those people be immune from cuts which impact their co-workers? Not in my opinion. I wonder if it's the women who are losing their jobs because of the larger employment discrimination against them which, generally speaking, allows them to rise no further than middle-management -- typically it's the middle managers who are cut first in situations like this because they've typically been around a long time, and two could be hired to replace them with the same expenditure, and their import to the company is vague at best. Rather than focusing on who's getting fired, I think better efforts might be placed on who is forbidden from rising above that glass ceiling in the first place.

 



__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

Anonymous wrote:

To be sure, it is illegal to dismiss someone or refuse to hire her specifically because she is pregnant, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But few employers are foolish enough to cite pregnancy as the reason for firing or not hiring someone.

See? I read this far, and my head screams: "But you CAN fire someone because they're LGBorT, and even SAY so, and be protected!"

that depends on where they live. many places have sexual orientation as a part of their discrimination practices. from find law

Federal Law

Although a broad umbrella of federal laws protects people from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, and disability, those facing discrimination based on sexual orientation have largely been left out in the rain -- at least at the national level. There is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector -- although federal government workers are currently protected from such discrimination. (Attempts to pass a piece of federal legislation that would outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in private workplaces, known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, have been unsuccessful to date.)

State Laws

At the state level, there is more cause for hope. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both public and private jobs: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Illinois has also passed such a law that will go into effect on January 1, 2006. And in Oregon, while no state law has been passed to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment, at least one court case found that sexual orientation discrimination is prohibited under the state's constitution (Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Ore. App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (1998)).

In addition, seven states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Local Laws

If you are gay or lesbian and your state does not have a law that protects you from workplace discrimination, you may still be protected by city and county ordinances. Over 180 cities and counties prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in at least some workplaces -- from Albany, NY, to Ypsilanti, MI.

To find out exactly what kind of protection your city, county, and/or state gives you from sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, you can visit the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund website at http://www.lambdalegal.org. Lambda maintains a list of state-by-state antidiscrimination laws -- as well as other laws specifically affecting gays and lesbians. If you need additional information, you can contact the Lambda office in your region. There, an intake volunteer will either answer your question or, if you need more help, connect you with a volunteer attorney.

Company Policies

Some enlightened companies have adopted their own policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. These policies prohibit such conduct and often provide disciplinary guidelines for dealing with it, up to and including termination of employment.

Other Laws

If you live in a place that has no specific laws protecting you, there may still be hope. Depending on the exact nature of the discrimination, you may be able to sue your employer -- or your coworkers -- under a number of general legal theories that apply to everyone:

  • intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress
  • harassment
  • assault
  • battery
  • invasion of privacy
  • defamation
  • interference with an employment contract, and
  • wrongful termination.

You can obtain more information about gay and lesbian workplace rights from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force at http://www.ngltf.org.

Copyright 2006 Nolo

While I DO have sympathy for these women, they DO have, and have had for over forty years, federal protection against this kind of ... what's the word? "Abuse?" On the other hand, an employer can look you or me right in the eye and say: "We don't let queers work here" and THAT'S peachy-keen fine right now. Matter of priority for me, I guess, and frankly, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over the rights of a group who DO have legal rights before those who don't enjoy those same and equal RIGHTS, and I'd feel the same if I wasn't, or didn't realize I was lesbian. 

i think there are a lot of reasons to care. from the lesbian standpoint its important to remember that many lesbians have children. theres a lil baby boom going on around here in lesbianville. but consider for a moment that even when children are the result of het relationships or gay men adopting its not the men who are losing the jobs,  its the women. its part of a larger picture of discrimination. most women work these days even women with kids. its the rare family that can keep things together on one income. the other aspect of this is the separation of issues that we assume effect on sub category of women over another. what divides us weakens us. womens issues belong to all women regardless of sexual orientation.

 


My thoughts on the whole pergnancy, maternity leave, discrimination discussion is so radical I won't even share it. I can tell you this, I have thrown away a good number of resumes and applications received from noticeably pregnant women. And, from the ones who unwittingly answer their reason for leaving the last position was to "get pregnant" or "start a family". I make a much better lesbian than I ever would have made a pregnant person. I make a much better lot of things than I would a pregnant person. Sorry, industry has to carry on and not necessarily on the backs of those of us who aren't "starting families". ;)

and what might happen if say in a year or two you meet the woman of your dreams and she wants a kid? it could happen yanno?  when my kids were young i was getting killed by child care costs so i did what i know how to do. i wrote a white paper and grant app for no cost child care and gave it to my boss who was also a lesbian btw but a childless one. i repeat the no cost  to the corp aspect here. the state had 100 million in grant funds for those corporations willing to start an on site day care. start up costs and subsidized care. something that would help to attract job candidates for sure. my boss handed it back to me and said it was your decision to have children and not everyone makes that choice. we cant give a benefit to one group of employees and not another. i was puzzled by this because from my perspective the benefit was for all, whether one chose to exercise that benefit was their own choice but it would be there is they wanted it. so it didnt happen. she was higher up on the food chain and it stopped with her. fast forward 5 years and guess what? she was preggers, turkey baster baby and in the break room bemoaning the cost of child care that she was facing.  ya never know whats behind the next bend. plan accordingly!





 



__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Apparently I can't even speel the word correctly when faced with this discussion. ;)

__________________
Anonymous

Date:
Permalink   

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

or taking the punch out of anti discrimination regulations.

its going to be especially important to monitor corporations, not to mention the attitudes of the "majority", for compliance with regulations regarding hard fought rights. there apparently are always ways to work around them. 

Patient Money

When the Stork Carries a Pink Slip

By LESLEY ALDERMAN
Published: March 27, 2009

HERES a pop quiz: Which of the following would violate federal employment law?

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
27patient_190.jpg
Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

Elizabeth Grossman, a lawyer for the E.E.O.C., says some employers may be tacitly discriminating against pregnant women and new mothers.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

1. Laying off a pregnant woman.

2. Laying off a woman on maternity leave.

Pencils down. The answer is neither.

It may not sound fair, as the national layoff tsunami is swamping even households with new infants, or babies en route. But it is entirely legal to lay off a pregnant woman or a woman on maternity leave as long as the employer can make the case that she is being let go for a reason unrelated to her pregnancy.

To be sure, it is illegal to dismiss someone or refuse to hire her specifically because she is pregnant, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But few employers are foolish enough to cite pregnancy as the reason for firing or not hiring someone.

See? I read this far, and my head screams: "But you CAN fire someone because they're LGBorT, and even SAY so, and be protected!"

While I DO have sympathy for these women, they DO have, and have had for over forty years, federal protection against this kind of ... what's the word? "Abuse?" On the other hand, an employer can look you or me right in the eye and say: "We don't let queers work here" and THAT'S peachy-keen fine right now. Matter of priority for me, I guess, and frankly, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over the rights of a group who DO have legal rights before those who don't enjoy those same and equal RIGHTS, and I'd feel the same if I wasn't, or didn't realize I was lesbian.  

 


My thoughts on the whole pergnancy, maternity leave, discrimination discussion is so radical I won't even share it. I can tell you this, I have thrown away a good number of resumes and applications received from noticeably pregnant women. And, from the ones who unwittingly answer their reason for leaving the last position was to "get pregnant" or "start a family". I make a much better lesbian than I ever would have made a pregnant person. I make a much better lot of things than I would a pregnant person. Sorry, industry has to carry on and not necessarily on the backs of those of us who aren't "starting families". ;)

 



__________________
Nightowlhoot3


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1307
Date:
Permalink   

Psych Lit wrote:

or taking the punch out of anti discrimination regulations.

its going to be especially important to monitor corporations, not to mention the attitudes of the "majority", for compliance with regulations regarding hard fought rights. there apparently are always ways to work around them. 

Patient Money

When the Stork Carries a Pink Slip

By LESLEY ALDERMAN
Published: March 27, 2009

HERES a pop quiz: Which of the following would violate federal employment law?

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
27patient_190.jpg
Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

Elizabeth Grossman, a lawyer for the E.E.O.C., says some employers may be tacitly discriminating against pregnant women and new mothers.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

1. Laying off a pregnant woman.

2. Laying off a woman on maternity leave.

Pencils down. The answer is neither.

It may not sound fair, as the national layoff tsunami is swamping even households with new infants, or babies en route. But it is entirely legal to lay off a pregnant woman or a woman on maternity leave as long as the employer can make the case that she is being let go for a reason unrelated to her pregnancy.

To be sure, it is illegal to dismiss someone or refuse to hire her specifically because she is pregnant, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But few employers are foolish enough to cite pregnancy as the reason for firing or not hiring someone.

See? I read this far, and my head screams: "But you CAN fire someone because they're LGBorT, and even SAY so, and be protected!"

While I DO have sympathy for these women, they DO have, and have had for over forty years, federal protection against this kind of ... what's the word? "Abuse?" On the other hand, an employer can look you or me right in the eye and say: "We don't let queers work here" and THAT'S peachy-keen fine right now. Matter of priority for me, I guess, and frankly, I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over the rights of a group who DO have legal rights before those who don't enjoy those same and equal RIGHTS, and I'd feel the same if I wasn't, or didn't realize I was lesbian.  

 



__________________
Psych Lit


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1547
Date:
Permalink   

or taking the punch out of anti discrimination regulations.

its going to be especially important to monitor corporations, not to mention the attitudes of the "majority", for compliance with regulations regarding hard fought rights. there apparently are always ways to work around them. 

Patient Money

When the Stork Carries a Pink Slip

By LESLEY ALDERMAN
Published: March 27, 2009

HERES a pop quiz: Which of the following would violate federal employment law?

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
27patient_190.jpg
Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

Elizabeth Grossman, a lawyer for the E.E.O.C., says some employers may be tacitly discriminating against pregnant women and new mothers.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

1. Laying off a pregnant woman.

2. Laying off a woman on maternity leave.

Pencils down. The answer is neither.

It may not sound fair, as the national layoff tsunami is swamping even households with new infants, or babies en route. But it is entirely legal to lay off a pregnant woman or a woman on maternity leave as long as the employer can make the case that she is being let go for a reason unrelated to her pregnancy.

To be sure, it is illegal to dismiss someone or refuse to hire her specifically because she is pregnant, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But few employers are foolish enough to cite pregnancy as the reason for firing or not hiring someone.

Aside from such blatant discrimination, pregnant women have no special protection under federal employment law, says Elizabeth Grossman, a lawyer for the New York district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Ms. Grossman is among the lawyers who suspect that some employers are now using the laws laxity and the dismal economy to tacitly discriminate against new or expectant mothers. She and other experts urge women who suspect such discrimination to seek legal counsel.

Some employers are using the economy as a pretense for laying off just one person, Ms. Grossman said. And very often that person is pregnant or the oldest employee on staff. The economy may be the legitimate cause or there may be discrimination.

Last year the number of pregnancy-based discrimination charges filed with the E.E.O.C. was up nearly 50 percent from a decade earlier, to a total of 6,285. That number seems likely to rise even higher this year.

At the WorkLife Law hot line run by the University of California Hastings College of the Law, where the phones seldom used to ring, a dozen calls a week are now coming in, according to Cynthia Calvert, deputy director of the Center for WorkLife Law. The free hot line (1-800-981-9495) gives legal information to parents and caregivers of children or elderly parents, who feel they are being discriminated against because of their family obligations.

Many of the callers, Ms. Calvert said, are pregnant women apprehensive that they may be targeted for layoffs, or pregnant women or women on maternity leave who were already let go.

Labor laws flimsy shield often comes as a shock to women. Last December, Sarah Feider, 39, suspected layoffs were imminent at her workplace a large publishing house in New York City. Citing her severance agreement, she insisted that the employer not be identified.

My friends were saying: Youre fine. No way would they lay you off,  Ms. Feider recalls. Not only was she seven months pregnant, but her husband had recently lost his job. Everyone assumed it was illegal or against some moral code to fire a pregnant woman, she said.

But five days after she and her husband moved into a new apartment, Ms. Feider got the news. She was being let go as part of companywide cutbacks.

It was awful I was planning to work until I went into labor, and to return after taking my allotted maternity leave, said Ms. Feider, the mother of a 5-week-old boy, Roman. Instead of being given an office baby shower, I was given a pink slip.

She talked informally to a few lawyers about her situation. I did wonder if my being pregnant factored into their decision, she said. They knew I was going to be out for at least three months, and they needed bodies in the office to get the work done. But because she was part of a larger downsizing by the employer, the lawyers said discrimination might be hard to prove.

Ellina Kevorkian was laid off from the Neiman Marcus store in Beverly Hills when she was eight months pregnant. Her position, office coordinator in the precious jewelry department, was eliminated companywide.

In order to collect unemployment, you are supposed to be looking for a job, she said. But who can look for a job when they are in their last weeks of pregnancy? After Ms. Kevorkians doctor vouched for her inability to work, she was able to start drawing state disability benefits. At a time when youre so vulnerable, you have so little protection, Ms. Kevorkian said.

Ginger Reeder, a spokeswoman for the Neiman Marcus Group, confirmed Ms. Kevorkians account of the layoff, adding that everyone whose job was eliminated this year was offered a similar severance package.

If a pregnant laid-off employee worked for a small company fewer than 20 employees affordable health insurance can be difficult to find. That is because small employers are not required under federal Cobra law to offer medical benefits to former employees.

And most individual policies people can find on their own, if they can find them at all, do not cover childbirth except with the purchase of a special rider that in some states may require a wait of up to two years, notes Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Womens Law Center, an advocacy organization based in Washington.

Fortunately for Poonam Sharma, 36, an architect in Los Angeles, she and her family were eligible for Cobra coverage after she was laid off. She got the news in early February when her daughter, Noor, was 2 months old that she was one of seven people being let go from her 70-person firm. Ms. Sharma had planned to return after a maternity leave of three and a half months.

Because of the recent 65 percent reduction in Cobra premiums under the new federal economic stimulus package, coverage for Ms. Sharma, her husband and daughter will be manageable, at $231 a month. But that is small solace for being laid off.

I was shocked and disappointed, Ms. Sharma recalled. I dont think they were singling me out, but it is convenient to lay off a woman on maternity leave. Shes not working on any projects, so nothing gets disrupted.

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
Where Everybody Knows You're Numb -> SunnyliesaBunch -> and we have our institutionalized sexism today too!


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard