Anonymous wrote:Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Shame as they’re the best-educated cohort in the country right now. Something tells me they’re still going to get hired.

So we stop prosecuting crimes because they’re hard to prove? Lots of crimes are hard to prove that doesn’t mean we don’t have laws governing behavior. It’s the law. Cope.

And isn’t this the same bunch saying people don’t want to work in a frantically tight labor market? I think everyone will be fine even if you’re required to make reasonable accommodation. Threads like this make me understand how this country got triangle shirtwaist factory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sounds like discrimination based on sex and age. Good idea.

Age and sex discrimination is already so subtle that nothing can be proved.

When was the last time you had a job? Seriously gramps, times have changed.

DP. It’s not so easy to prove. The other poster is correct.

+2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sounds like discrimination based on sex and age. Good idea.

Age and sex discrimination is already so subtle that nothing can be proved.

When was the last time you had a job? Seriously gramps, times have changed.

DP. It’s not so easy to prove. The other poster is correct.

I testified for a coworker who was fired when pregnant and her boss and HR lied under oath. She lost and three months later my job was abolished! I sued and I won but only because I had kept copious notes and had memos to the files and copies to HR
.


Men and women lose jobs every day for for discrimination and women for pregnancy. It's easy and employers know every angle.

But you aren’t disproving the PP who said age, sex and pregnancy discrimination are hard to prove. You proved your case, but your case sounds like wrongful termination, not age, sex or pregnancy. Whereas your pregnant coworker lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sounds like discrimination based on sex and age. Good idea.

Age and sex discrimination is already so subtle that nothing can be proved.

When was the last time you had a job? Seriously gramps, times have changed.

DP. It’s not so easy to prove. The other poster is correct.

I testified for a coworker who was fired when pregnant and her boss and HR lied under oath. She lost and three months later my job was abolished! I sued and I won but only because I had kept copious notes and had memos to the files and copies to HR
.


Men and women lose jobs every day for for discrimination and women for pregnancy. It's easy and employers know every angle.

Anonymous wrote:Do you have a link? All I can find it the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Here you go.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/exreq/pages/details.aspx?erid=1835

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sounds like discrimination based on sex and age. Good idea.

Age and sex discrimination is already so subtle that nothing can be proved.

When was the last time you had a job? Seriously gramps, times have changed.

DP. It’s not so easy to prove. The other poster is correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sounds like discrimination based on sex and age. Good idea.

Age and sex discrimination is already so subtle that nothing can be proved.

When was the last time you had a job? Seriously gramps, times have changed.

Anonymous wrote:Do you have a link? All I can find it the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Do you have a link? All I can find it the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sure, great strategy if you want to be sued out of existence.

Anonymous wrote:

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sounds like discrimination based on sex and age. Good idea.

Age and sex discrimination is already so subtle that nothing can be proved.

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.

Sounds like discrimination based on sex and age. Good idea.

Sounds good on paper but will ensure women of child bearing are are not hired.