Here's a pop quiz: Which of the following would violate federal employment law?
1. Laying off a pregnant woman.
2. Laying off a woman on maternity leave.
Pencils down. The answer is "neither."
So long as employers can make the case that the firing has nothing to do with pregnancy or maternity leave - it's all good. And it makes sense in theory: after all, folks who do a bad job should be fired no matter what their pregnancy/motherhood status. But the problem is, it seems like employers are using the economy to discriminate against mothers.
"Some employers are using the economy as a pretense for laying off just one person," Ms. [Elizabeth] Grossman, [a lawyer for the New York district office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] 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.
The whole article is really interesting; make sure to check it out. For more information on motherhood and discrimination, go to Moms Rising.
I have been reading at feministing.com probably longer than you. I've also researched their editors and contributors, just so I would know their backgrounds and current activities. With that said...
As a general rule, I refrain from commenting on these subjects found at feministing.com and brought to this board. However, this article, imo, has too many "seems", "mays", etc. for me to refrain from comment. Of course, the calls have increased. It stands to reason that when the unemployment numbers increase, especially as significantly as they have, the number of complaint calls will increase. It's all relative. However, the numbers do not prove any discrimination is occuring. I think that is why the author was careful to use the "seems" and "mays".
I read the NYT article and comments as well as the comments at feministing.com. Those responding at NYT 'seemed' more rational, factual and their input was based far less on emotion, which is not generally the case at feministing.com.
And, I know you often don't like to hear from some of us 'experienced' workforce women, so maybe you could ask your dad about his experiences in HR, the laws, etc. and dealing with cutbacks, firings, relative to pregnant women. I believe he will confirm that when it comes to decision-making of who will become unemployed, that pregnancy is not and cannot be a factor. That's not to say that it doesn't occur. But, as I said, the article is careful to address the subject as suspect and not address any active or pending pregnancy-related cases stemming from today's unemployment stats . JMO
Any economy that does not allow one parent to earn enough to support middle class family is hurting more than just mothers.
"Allow"? What a revealing choice of words, general. As usual, your world is a grim and dreary place, populated by powerless, subservient subjects, hoping today is not the day they get noticed. People who want to be King have self-esteem issues, general. You might look into it.
And, I know you often don't like to hear from some of us 'experienced' workforce women
---------------
I don't get why you would think that way? Because Liz and I got into it? Most of the time, I defer to the "older" and "wiser" thoughts and know when to back off of a topic that I know very little about.
If you should conclude anything about me, it's that I try to remain as humble and open to others' wisdoms as I can. Because I am young. When I worked as a CNA in caring for some older folks - one of them was an old veteran. WW2, Vietnam War, etc. I loved talking to him when I had the chance and the time. Most CNAs ignore what these wise old gems have to say because they are seen merely as a patient.
So...as I said previously Inka, I too went ot the NYT article and realized it had much more "meat" than what was posted at Feministing.com which is why I hadn't commented on it.
