Anonymous wrote:In CA a pregnant K9 Officer was given desk duty against her wishes because it was deemed safer by her superiors.
Maybe this type of discussion is in the Roe v Wade thread already, but I think it deserves its own topic. There are federal laws on the books protecting women from discrimination, but are all those laws doomed if women are just a vessel while pregnant?
How does one square safety of the fetus against the job demands of the employed pregnant woman? And if those employment protections are overturned, how are those women going to pay for their babies?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/13/daryn-glenn-lawsuit-canine/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fb_news_token=R%2FdcSAx%2BGi%2F%2B%2FOoEYpXScQ%3D%3D.41Mq%2F820hCNQfxJb1mFWnFvf7v3ZsEVpvLn7JfL47pmobuLI0GcR0ly43RGSLE1jLnDTSrSFVlKmDCdnp1zGw55iMQdXKURyyzqtcthA7TjrcQuoEg9Ocbix62DC0vQwkPbnXwsFrVvymgmUV9AF5xZsHrUoOUBBELiXC55s5j6HdatMpPmaPY%2FHq%2BygDHtH99SpHzk3r1EYEgR2BFPm5cMM%2Fhr%2FPl%2B4E1Y2%2Fq0D%2BC6IftsaxeL7jqjwR3I1j1%2F%2FASCuHThjJhvio965%2F%2FIZHqqUpqJiFwzh4wBHX%2FTiMGVtQxdk5HueVsyN6cjs0L3%2F4c6hUY%2BDObP3n815WBoB4Q%3D%3D

Pregnancy, age, or just plain old fashioned discrimination against women is virtually impossible to prove. Other we employees will lie to protect their jobs and adding insult to injury, EEOC doesn't seem to care that much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it IS discrimination. Under federal law.
So now women have to birth babies they don’t want, AND lose employment opportunities, promotions, pay raises they DO want. Man.

Yep. Women aren’t people in the GOP. This is what they want, they want women to be reliant on men and back in the home.

This happened in California.

Not sure the right answer because the employer likely would have gotten sued as well if something happened to her or the baby doing normal duties.

This was decided back in the early 80s with regard to women working in occupations exposing them to chemicals. They would be required to show they were incapable of becoming pregnant. SCOTUS said it was their decision whether to work in hazardous occupations whether potentially or actually pregnant. Still in the 1990s my sister applied for a job at a Job Service event for a company that did industrial painting and they asked her flat out about her fertility and birth control.

No, they would not be liable an officer was pregnant and wanted to be on regular duty as far as I can see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it IS discrimination. Under federal law.
So now women have to birth babies they don’t want, AND lose employment opportunities, promotions, pay raises they DO want. Man.

Yep. Women aren’t people in the GOP. This is what they want, they want women to be reliant on men and back in the home.

This happened in California.

Not sure the right answer because the employer likely would have gotten sued as well if something happened to her or the baby doing normal duties.

Anonymous wrote:In CA a pregnant K9 Officer was given desk duty against her wishes because it was deemed safer by her superiors.
Maybe this type of discussion is in the Roe v Wade thread already, but I think it deserves its own topic. There are federal laws on the books protecting women from discrimination, but are all those laws doomed if women are just a vessel while pregnant?
How does one square safety of the fetus against the job demands of the employed pregnant woman? And if those employment protections are overturned, how are those women going to pay for their babies?

The situation of a pregnant K9 Officer being reassigned to desk duty for safety reasons raises important questions about balancing job demands with the safety of both the employee and her unborn child. Federal laws do provide protections against pregnancy discrimination, but navigating these protections can be complex, especially when job safety is a concern.

To address these issues, it’s crucial to understand that while safety considerations are valid, employers must also ensure they are not discriminating against employees based on pregnancy. If you believe your rights are being compromised, you can seek assistance from legal experts. Consumer Attorneys specialize in employment law and can provide guidance on how to address discrimination or unfair treatment in such situations. They can help you understand your rights and explore potential legal avenues to ensure fair treatment and protect your livelihood.

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it IS discrimination. Under federal law.
So now women have to birth babies they don’t want, AND lose employment opportunities, promotions, pay raises they DO want. Man.

Yes. They would prefer that women be trapped by the sort of trash male that votes for the GOP. You know, the kind who spends his food budget on an F-150 and whose masculinity is more fragile than a cracked egg. Fun to fool around with maybe, but never worth any sort of commitment.

Anonymous wrote:I mean, it IS discrimination. Under federal law.
So now women have to birth babies they don’t want, AND lose employment opportunities, promotions, pay raises they DO want. Man.

Yep. Women aren’t people in the GOP. This is what they want, they want women to be reliant on men and back in the home.

Anonymous wrote:I was demoted while pregnant and also had my boss reveal to a reference caller of a job I was moving to that I had complications during my pregnancy that caused me to miss work (offer was retracted). While there a laws on the books, they are difficult to enforce and will ruin your career if you sue.

I am so sorry to read that. Have you found another job?

I mean, it IS discrimination. Under federal law.
So now women have to birth babies they don’t want, AND lose employment opportunities, promotions, pay raises they DO want. Man.

I don't think there is one cut and dry answer to this dilemma. I actually went into labor at work - I was a teacher and there was very low risk to me during pregnancy.
The same can not be said for all occupations. Employers need to take the safety of their employees into consideration when it comes to pregnancy. Being a K-9 officer may be difficult - especially in the latter stages of pregnancy. These officers need to be able to run, wrestle, and the job can be physically demanding. Not only does the employer need to take the safety of the employee into consideration, but if something were to happen....in today's litigious society, they need to take precautions not to be sued by an employee injured on the job.

I don't consider this discrimination at all. This employer would likely take the same measures with an employee on chemotherapy, or one recuperating from a hip replacement or other surgery.

I was demoted while pregnant and also had my boss reveal to a reference caller of a job I was moving to that I had complications during my pregnancy that caused me to miss work (offer was retracted). While there a laws on the books, they are difficult to enforce and will ruin your career if you sue.

In CA a pregnant K9 Officer was given desk duty against her wishes because it was deemed safer by her superiors.
Maybe this type of discussion is in the Roe v Wade thread already, but I think it deserves its own topic. There are federal laws on the books protecting women from discrimination, but are all those laws doomed if women are just a vessel while pregnant?
How does one square safety of the fetus against the job demands of the employed pregnant woman? And if those employment protections are overturned, how are those women going to pay for their babies?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/13/daryn-glenn-lawsuit-canine/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fb_news_token=R%2FdcSAx%2BGi%2F%2B%2FOoEYpXScQ%3D%3D.41Mq%2F820hCNQfxJb1mFWnFvf7v3ZsEVpvLn7JfL47pmobuLI0GcR0ly43RGSLE1jLnDTSrSFVlKmDCdnp1zGw55iMQdXKURyyzqtcthA7TjrcQuoEg9Ocbix62DC0vQwkPbnXwsFrVvymgmUV9AF5xZsHrUoOUBBELiXC55s5j6HdatMpPmaPY%2FHq%2BygDHtH99SpHzk3r1EYEgR2BFPm5cMM%2Fhr%2FPl%2B4E1Y2%2Fq0D%2BC6IftsaxeL7jqjwR3I1j1%2F%2FASCuHThjJhvio965%2F%2FIZHqqUpqJiFwzh4wBHX%2FTiMGVtQxdk5HueVsyN6cjs0L3%2F4c6hUY%2BDObP3n815WBoB4Q%3D%3D