This makes me sad - fired/forced to quit over BF'ing

[withsilverwings]

www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/supreme-court-lets-stand-ruling-that-firing-woman-for-breastfeeding-not-sexist-because-men-can-lactate/

Poor women is denied access to the lactation room because she failed to fill out paperwork prior to returning to work, paperwork she was informed of when she got to work.  Forced to resign over the issue - told "Go home and be with your babies".   Told she must make up all work missed during her mat leave in 2 weeks or face discipline.  Then is told by the courts lactating isn't a condition related to pregnancy and childbirth because sometimes men can lactate too?  WTF

So sad for that woman, and so very grateful I live in Canada

[gingy]

That's insane. Who are these men that lactate and why is my husband not one of them?!!

I would like to hear the other side of the story. What's the purpose of paperwork to use the pumping room? Ridiculous.

[mandapanda1382]

Seems like such an odd outcome/decision.

[sweetpies]

I don't understand. This seems especially strange in California. They always seem to have the most stringent sexual harrassment laws. And if you looknit up, it takes extreme effort for a man to lactate.

[mc03]

That's not really what happened if you look at the case and know about the law. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which is very common. Unless there is a question of constitutional concern that has never been addressed most cases are not heard by the Supreme Court. Declining to hear the case doesn't necesarily mean they agree with the decision.

And the originally district court decision seemsto be based on other issues - such as the procedure to make a complaint. Im not saying the story is totally false, but I think it is very over sensationalized.

[mandapanda1382]

Feb 10, 2015 0:20:11 GMT -5 mc03 said:

That's not really what happened if you look at the case and know about the law. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which is very common. Unless there is a question of constitutional concern that has never been addressed most cases are not heard by the Supreme Court. Declining to hear the case doesn't necesarily mean they agree with the decision.

And the originally district court decision seemsto be based on other issues - such as the procedure to make a complaint. Im not saying the story is totally false, but I think it is very over sensationalized.

I didn't read it, but I had wondered if something like that was going on. Sensational headlines usually are for click bait.

[yogini kiki]

Feb 9, 2015 19:23:43 GMT -5 withsilverwings said:

www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/supreme-court-lets-stand-ruling-that-firing-woman-for-breastfeeding-not-sexist-because-men-can-lactate/

Poor women is denied access to the lactation room because she failed to fill out paperwork prior to returning to work, paperwork she was informed of when she got to work.  Forced to resign over the issue - told "Go home and be with your babies".   Told she must make up all work missed during her mat leave in 2 weeks or face discipline.  Then is told by the courts lactating isn't a condition related to pregnancy and childbirth because sometimes men can lactate too?  WTF

So sad for that woman, and so very grateful I live in Canada

This makes me so angry.

Also--I wish my husband would figure out the lactation thing as I could use some sleep.

[yogini kiki]

Feb 10, 2015 0:20:11 GMT -5 mc03 said:

That's not really what happened if you look at the case and know about the law. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which is very common. Unless there is a question of constitutional concern that has never been addressed most cases are not heard by the Supreme Court. Declining to hear the case doesn't necesarily mean they agree with the decision.

And the originally district court decision seemsto be based on other issues - such as the procedure to make a complaint. Im not saying the story is totally false, but I think it is very over sensationalized.

Ahhhh--- thank you MC03.  I thank you for showing us that we aren't as bad as the sensationalist press would have you think.  Just by a little though.

Hope your big case is going well!  Rooting for you!

[withsilverwings]

It was definitely press-ified to get a better story, the part that got me was

"even if she had, there was no sex discrimination because she did not fall under the class of people Title VII protects. The court held that what she experienced was not sex discrimination (‘go home and be with your babies’ was a gender-neutral comment) and that lactation was not protected under Title VII as a ‘condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.’ <because men can lactate too>"

I read that as even if she had done the complaint procedure correctly, the company was not in the wrong for treating her the way they did because lactating isn't a female/pregnancy related thing- is that correct?

That just blows my mind as pumping and breastfeeding (yes, breastfeeding) at work are protected rights in my province under sex discrimination. Employers MUST offer a space for pumping, and if pumping takes longer than regular breaks, the breaks are to be extended.