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