In article <7BEA5F16B8 at cellbio.emory.edu>, DENISE at cellbio.emory.edu wrote:
>>Well, I usually stay silent on this newsgroup, just reaping the benefits
of the advice that
>comes through, but I can't help myself from bringing up this question today:
>>Did anyone see "Ally McBeal" last night? What did you think about the
case against the law
>firm who removed their female associate from the "partner track" after
>maternity leave because she just wasn't going to be able to "put in the hours"?
>>I guess I bring this up because my husband and I had some diverging views
on this. While I
>can understand that if one was an employer for a job that requires around
the clock "on call"
>status, a devoted mom might not be my first choice-candidate for the job,
but I think that
>situation is a far cry from the prevailing "time" requirement that we put
on other jobs.
>>Anyway, I don't want to get too wordy with my views on the subject. I'm
just interested to
>know what the rest of you think.
This is BLATANT sex discrimination, similar to, "Oh, a man has a family to
support. We'll pay him more than the single/married/whatever woman, even
though she's much more qualified." I saw of a lawsuit in NYS where a
teacher got a bad performance evaluation (her first) when she became
pregnant. Noises were also made that she would not get tenure.
Apparently the principal has a reputation for discriminating against
pregnant staff, but the current case is the first to be filed.
<mailto:cjfuller at erickson.uncg.edu>
<mailto:cjfuller at mindspring.com>