Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Re: Changing Roles Message-ID: <1293@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Jul-85 13:36:15 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1293 Posted: Sun Jul 14 13:36:15 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 15:23:25 EDT References: <993@ubc-vision.CDN> <202@ihlpl.UUCP> <282@timeinc.UUCP> <206@ihlpl.UUCP> <288@timeinc.UUCP> Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 41 > They were both excellent! And then the women walked about three months > into the contract. She had gotten pregnant *before* she had signed > up with me. > > Anyway, she walked off and said "Go ahead! Try to sue me. You can't -- > I'm pregnant!". And you know what: she was right! I had no hold over > her: my lawyer told me to piss into the wind for better results. > It seems that to sue her for any reason *based* on her pregnancy would > be discriminatory, and therefore not valid grounds for a suit. > > Now, that obviously couldn't happen to a man :-) > > Now, should I make an effort next time to "overlook" the physical > differences? And get screwed again? Or should I instead not > overlook them, and opt to hire only those that can not get pregnant: men. > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York There are always a few people who will manage to ruin it for everybody else, aren't there? I can sympathise with your position. It is amazing how one personal experience can really affect one's judgement of a lot of people. YOur distrust of women workers is probably just as justified now as some women's distrust of men. What more can be said? This is very sad for everybody, sad that innocent women will not be refused jobs because of the mistakes of others, sad that innocent men will not be trusted by women because there are so many rapists and sad that there are people who abuse others in such fashions. As a side note: it is interesting that pregnancy is considered an illness depending on how much money there is to be made out of it. Hospitals and hospitals certainly treats them as illnesses, but insurance companies don't. In your case, I still find it strange that there is no way this woman could be pinned. If she intended to work throughout her pregnancy and didn't succeed to, it must have been because her pregnancy somehow disabled her (in which case she should have qualified as sick). If not, then she left even though she was capable of working? that sounds like a breach of contract to me. Or was it all a question of cutting it too close, the contract lasting longer than expected? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie