PDA

View Full Version : Federal Court rules in favor of breastfeeding cop who sued City of Tuscaloosa



Dr. Who
09-17-2017, 03:49 PM
http://image.al.com/home/bama-media/width620/img/news_impact/photo/23380085-mmmain.jpg

Stephanie Hicks was an officer with the Tuscaloosa Police Department before resigning after she said her work environment turned hostile when she returned from maternity leave. A jury agreed in 2016, and an appellate court upheld the decision in 2017.

Federal judges ruled Thursday that a Tuscaloosa police officer's rights as a breastfeeding mother were protected by anti-discrimination laws.

In 2013, former Tuscaloosa Police Officer Stephanie Hicks sued the Tuscaloosa Police Department after she said the department created a hostile work environment, demoted her and essentially forced her to quit.

Last year a federal jury agreed (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/wrap_those_boobs_up_breastfeed.html), awarding her $374,000 in damages after finding the department violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The city appealed, and this week the 11th Circuit Court upheld the jury's verdict. A three-judge panel found "sufficient evidence of discrimination" by the Tuscaloosa PD against Hicks.

The court also affirmed that breastfeeding is a medical condition related to pregnancy that is protected under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/appeals_court_rules_in_favor_o.html

In her last performance review before she went on leave, Hicks’ supervisor wrote that she “exceeded expectations.”

Then the baby came. For 12 weeks, Hicks was home with her little boy. The baby’s collar bone broke during delivery and he needed extra-tender care. He had colic and was constantly crying. She was either breastfeeding him or expressing more milk, using an electric pump, pretty much around the clock.

At no point did she back away from her plan to return to work, she said, nor did she intend to stop breastfeeding once she was back on the job.

“That was never the plan,” Hicks, 38, told HuffPost recently. Like many other working mothers, Hicks figured she’d bring her pump to work and take two breaks during her 8 a.m.-4 p.m. shift to express milk. Friends of hers, including at least one in another division of the Tuscaloosa Police Department, had done much the same.

But from the moment she returned to work, nothing went as planned. Hicks said her supervisors treated her differently, refusing to accommodate her need for pumping breaks, among other problems.
“I was blindsided,” Hicks said.

Less than two weeks after she came back, Hicks quit her job. She felt like she had no choice. Her supervisors had essentially given her an ultimatum: Give up breastfeeding or quit the police force.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/breastfeeding-at-work-stephanie-hicks-tuscaloosa_us_59bc02d3e4b0edff971bb8c1
It's strange. She was apparently an exceptional officer, great performance reviews and yet because she had the nerve to get pregnant, she became persona non grata. I'm happy that the Courts found in her favor, but she lost a career that she enjoyed. What's wrong with people?

AeonPax
09-17-2017, 08:53 PM
`
`
I like the fact that she was awarded $374,000 in damages and put the Tuscaloosa Police department on national notice that their misogynistic work environment discriminates against women.

resister
09-17-2017, 08:57 PM
She did get about 10 years pay! Enough to find a lower risk career! The silver lining!

Dr. Who
09-17-2017, 09:30 PM
She did get about 10 years pay! Enough to find a lower risk career! The silver lining!
More like five year's pay. Tuscaloosa officers make between 50K and 67K for patrol officers. She was an investigator, so she was probably making at least 67K if not more. https://www.google.ca/search?q=tuscaloosa+police+pay&oq=tuscaloosa+police+pay&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.9092j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

resister
09-17-2017, 09:39 PM
More like five year's pay. Tuscaloosa officers make between 50K and 67K for patrol officers. She was an investigator, so she was probably making at least 67K if not more. https://www.google.ca/search?q=tuscaloosa+police+pay&oq=tuscaloosa+police+pay&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.9092j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Damn, lot of tax money. An RN makes a similar salary.

Dr. Who
09-17-2017, 09:47 PM
Damn, lot of tax money. An RN makes a similar salary.
She was doing undercover work with drug dealers - pretty risky.

resister
09-17-2017, 09:49 PM
She was doing undercover work with drug dealers - pretty risky.
Handling the CI's? She would not pass muster as a buyer/user. Not enough mileage on the odometer, did she kick in doors?

Dr. Who
09-17-2017, 09:54 PM
Handling the CI's? She would not pass muster as a buyer/user. Not enough mileage on the odometer, did she kick in doors?
They didn't say, only that her performance review indicated that she exceeded expectations. That means for her rank and job description, she went beyond what was required.

Cletus
09-17-2017, 11:39 PM
She should have resigned when she got pregnant instead of becoming a burden on her department.

Common
09-18-2017, 10:22 AM
People do not understand how this all works

Officer Hicks is out on Patrol, today there is one officer per vehicle and officers in her zone are responsible to respond and back up other officers.

I dont remember how many times a day a baby needs to be fed, but she has to come off road be replaced, get in her personal car, drive to where the baby is breast feed come back, the officer replacing her is called back in and she goes back on the road, Repeat.

Even if they took her off patrol duty and put her inside, you cant bring your baby to the precinct all day, this is a huge imposition and costly for the dept. In smaller depts where she works there are few desk jobs, possibly one or two, they may very well have to create a phanthom position for her to get paid to breast feed her baby, doesnt seem quite fair for everyone else, and wouldnt it be grand if you had 2 or 3 breast feeding mothers.

If a police officer decides to breast feed she should be put on unpaid leave after her paid maternity leave expires then return to work when breast feeding is over, thats the way it was always handled, breast feeding isnt new.

Adelaide
09-18-2017, 01:25 PM
People do not understand how this all works

Officer Hicks is out on Patrol, today there is one officer per vehicle and officers in her zone are responsible to respond and back up other officers.

I dont remember how many times a day a baby needs to be fed, but she has to come off road be replaced, get in her personal car, drive to where the baby is breast feed come back, the officer replacing her is called back in and she goes back on the road, Repeat.

Even if they took her off patrol duty and put her inside, you cant bring your baby to the precinct all day, this is a huge imposition and costly for the dept. In smaller depts where she works there are few desk jobs, possibly one or two, they may very well have to create a phanthom position for her to get paid to breast feed her baby, doesnt seem quite fair for everyone else, and wouldnt it be grand if you had 2 or 3 breast feeding mothers.

If a police officer decides to breast feed she should be put on unpaid leave after her paid maternity leave expires then return to work when breast feeding is over, thats the way it was always handled, breast feeding isnt new.

You can pump at work and store the milk. You do not go all the way home to breastfeed your child. It's not only that women want to feed their newborns breast milk, but that biologically they are producing it and need to pump in order to prevent leaks, some infections, inflammation, and really, really sore breasts.

Edit: Pumping is actually something some moms like to do. A few friends of mine would "pump and dump" if they decided they wanted to have a glass of wine, for example. You can also see differences in milk quality. You can also pump a lot for a short period and store/freeze some milk for a later time when you might be away from the child or whatever.

Perianne
09-18-2017, 02:01 PM
Breastfeeding is a great thing. It's the way God intended it.

Safety
09-18-2017, 02:14 PM
http://image.al.com/home/bama-media/width620/img/news_impact/photo/23380085-mmmain.jpg

Stephanie Hicks was an officer with the Tuscaloosa Police Department before resigning after she said her work environment turned hostile when she returned from maternity leave. A jury agreed in 2016, and an appellate court upheld the decision in 2017.

Federal judges ruled Thursday that a Tuscaloosa police officer's rights as a breastfeeding mother were protected by anti-discrimination laws.

In 2013, former Tuscaloosa Police Officer Stephanie Hicks sued the Tuscaloosa Police Department after she said the department created a hostile work environment, demoted her and essentially forced her to quit.

Last year a federal jury agreed (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/03/wrap_those_boobs_up_breastfeed.html), awarding her $374,000 in damages after finding the department violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The city appealed, and this week the 11th Circuit Court upheld the jury's verdict. A three-judge panel found "sufficient evidence of discrimination" by the Tuscaloosa PD against Hicks.

The court also affirmed that breastfeeding is a medical condition related to pregnancy that is protected under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/09/appeals_court_rules_in_favor_o.html

In her last performance review before she went on leave, Hicks’ supervisor wrote that she “exceeded expectations.”

Then the baby came. For 12 weeks, Hicks was home with her little boy. The baby’s collar bone broke during delivery and he needed extra-tender care. He had colic and was constantly crying. She was either breastfeeding him or expressing more milk, using an electric pump, pretty much around the clock.

At no point did she back away from her plan to return to work, she said, nor did she intend to stop breastfeeding once she was back on the job.

“That was never the plan,” Hicks, 38, told HuffPost recently. Like many other working mothers, Hicks figured she’d bring her pump to work and take two breaks during her 8 a.m.-4 p.m. shift to express milk. Friends of hers, including at least one in another division of the Tuscaloosa Police Department, had done much the same.

But from the moment she returned to work, nothing went as planned. Hicks said her supervisors treated her differently, refusing to accommodate her need for pumping breaks, among other problems.
“I was blindsided,” Hicks said.

Less than two weeks after she came back, Hicks quit her job. She felt like she had no choice. Her supervisors had essentially given her an ultimatum: Give up breastfeeding or quit the police force.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/breastfeeding-at-work-stephanie-hicks-tuscaloosa_us_59bc02d3e4b0edff971bb8c1
It's strange. She was apparently an exceptional officer, great performance reviews and yet because she had the nerve to get pregnant, she became persona non grata. I'm happy that the Courts found in her favor, but she lost a career that she enjoyed. What's wrong with people?



The law worked in the way it was designed to, good job.

Cletus
09-18-2017, 02:17 PM
Yeah, it inconvenienced the department and resulted in less efficient policing for the community.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 02:23 PM
She should have resigned when she got pregnant instead of becoming a burden on her department.
Does that go for all jobs that women hold?

Cletus
09-18-2017, 02:27 PM
Does that go for all jobs that women hold?

It depends on the burden she places on her employer. If the employer is fine with her taking x amount of time off and not replacing her and understanding that a newborn is going to have certain requirements that will affect work performance, that is great.

What is not great is an employer being forced by law to accept that.

Common
09-18-2017, 02:42 PM
You can pump at work and store the milk. You do not go all the way home to breastfeed your child. It's not only that women want to feed their newborns breast milk, but that biologically they are producing it and need to pump in order to prevent leaks, some infections, inflammation, and really, really sore breasts.

Edit: Pumping is actually something some moms like to do. A few friends of mine would "pump and dump" if they decided they wanted to have a glass of wine, for example. You can also see differences in milk quality. You can also pump a lot for a short period and store/freeze some milk for a later time when you might be away from the child or whatever.


The issue isnt pumping or breast feeding the issue is she has to go home to feed the baby or wherever the baby is.

Common
09-18-2017, 02:43 PM
Does that go for all jobs that women hold?
Not nearly as much as first responder public service jobs

Common
09-18-2017, 02:46 PM
The law worked in the way it was designed to, good job.
No law works 100% as intended, just like the ADA law we discussed that have small business being sued be nefarious individuals making a living off the law.

First responder public servants have always had to be under a different set of rules. Better than her disrupting the entire dept, it would be better to extend her maternity leave till the baby is on solid food, most public service jobs have 1 yr maternity leave as it is.

Adelaide
09-18-2017, 02:50 PM
The issue isnt pumping or breast feeding the issue is she has to go home to feed the baby or wherever the baby is.

Again, she would not go home to breastfeed the child. She would pump and store the breast milk.

Perianne
09-18-2017, 02:51 PM
Yeah, it inconvenienced the department and resulted in less efficient policing for the community.
Cletus, I love you, sir, but everyone has a right to take a break. She chose to pump her breasts during her break. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Adelaide
09-18-2017, 03:08 PM
Cletus, I love you, sir, but everyone has a right to take a break. She chose to pump her breasts during her break. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
Yeah, exactly.

Most women that I have worked with who went back to work early (in Canada, you get a year so most are not still pumping), they would use their 30 minute lunch and their two 15 minute breaks to pump and eat.

Not a big deal at all.

HoneyBadger
09-18-2017, 03:12 PM
Again, she would not go home to breastfeed the child. She would pump and store the breast milk.

Which can't be done from a patrol unit. She would have to return to the station which extends her "break" time, twice a shift. During that time, someone else has to pick up the slack.

DGUtley
09-18-2017, 03:24 PM
She should have resigned when she got pregnant instead of becoming a burden on her department.

I'm going to assume this was a joke.



It depends on the burden she places on her employer. If the employer is fine with her taking x amount of time off and not replacing her and understanding that a newborn is going to have certain requirements that will affect work performance, that is great. What is not great is an employer being forced by law to accept that.


The legislative branch has decided differently.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 03:41 PM
It depends on the burden she places on her employer. If the employer is fine with her taking x amount of time off and not replacing her and understanding that a newborn is going to have certain requirements that will affect work performance, that is great.
What is not great is an employer being forced by law to accept that.

So women should put their job before having children? Or quit to have children and stay home once they are pregnant or having delivered?

Should employers be permitted not to hire women unless they commit to not getting pregnant?

Not nearly as much as first responder public service jobs

My last question to cletus, to you as well. Also, should women be excluded from taking those jobs?

Cletus
09-18-2017, 04:05 PM
I'm going to assume this was a joke.

Why would you assume that?

Look at it this way... an employer hires a woman in a critical position. She gets pregnant and suddenly he finds himself without her. He can't replace her because he has to hold the position for her. That means hiring a temporary replacement, who will eventually be fired through no fault of his or her own or he tries to get by without the slot being filled. Then, when she does come back, there are all the issues of dealing with a newborn the EMPLOYER has to deal with. Increased absenteeism, juggling schedules... It places an unfair burden on the employer.

If he wants to do that in order to retain the employee, that is fine. It is his choice, but to FORCE him to do so is plain wrong.


The legislative branch has decided differently.

Well, they don't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to doing the right thing, do they?

Perianne
09-18-2017, 04:07 PM
Why would you assume that?
Look at it this way... an employer hires a woman in a critical position. She gets pregnant and suddenly he finds himself without her. He can't replace her because he has to hold the position for her. That means hiring a temporary replacement, who will eventually be fired through no fault of his or her own or he tries to get by without the slot being filled. Then, when she does come back, there are all the issues of dealing with a newborn the EMPLOYER has to deal with. Increased absenteeism, juggling schedules... It places an unfair burden on the employer.
If he wants to do that in order to retain the employee, that is fine. It is his choice, but to FORCE him to do so is plain wrong.
...
I see your point.

Cletus
09-18-2017, 04:08 PM
So women should put their job before having children? Or quit to have children and stay home once they are pregnant or having delivered?

That is between them and their employer. If he wants them back and is willing to work around their schedule, more power to them. However, if he is not willing to do so, he shouldn't be required to do so.

Should employers be permitted not to hire women unless they commit to not getting pregnant?

If that is a something the employer wants as a condition of employment, he should be able to make it one. If the woman doesn't like it, she can look for a different job and a different employer.

Since when did people start believing they have a RIGHT to a particular job?


My last question to cletus, to you as well. Also, should women be excluded from taking those jobs?

What jobs?

The employer starts a business for HIS benefit. If the employee is of no benefit to him, he shouldn't have to retain her or him if a male creates a similar situation.

Dr. Who
09-18-2017, 04:39 PM
That is between them and their employer. If he wants them back and is willing to work around their schedule, more power to them. However, if he is not willing to do so, he shouldn't be required to do so.


If that is a something the employer wants as a condition of employment, he should be able to make it one. If the woman doesn't like it, she can look for a different job and a different employer.

Since when did people start believing they have a RIGHT to a particular job?



What jobs?

The employer starts a business for HIS benefit. If the employee is of no benefit to him, he shouldn't have to retain her or him if a male creates a similar situation.
Except that a police department is a public institution, not a business. The PD sees fit to make allowances for people with illnesses, but discriminates against female officers with a specific physical need to pump the milk that is naturally being produced, and if it's not pumped results in excruciating pain and potential health problems. Not accommodating such physical conditions should be and is against public policy as it would otherwise lead to some women choosing not to have children. With inverse population growth, discouraging working women from having children is incompatible with the national goal of sustainable population levels.

Safety
09-18-2017, 06:03 PM
No law works 100% as intended, just like the ADA law we discussed that have small business being sued be nefarious individuals making a living off the law.

First responder public servants have always had to be under a different set of rules. Better than her disrupting the entire dept, it would be better to extend her maternity leave till the baby is on solid food, most public service jobs have 1 yr maternity leave as it is.

I know, but remember my first post in the the thread, let's not focus on the assholes that are trying to get rich off of taking advantage of the law.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 06:25 PM
That is between them and their employer. If he wants them back and is willing to work around their schedule, more power to them. However, if he is not willing to do so, he shouldn't be required to do so.


If that is a something the employer wants as a condition of employment, he should be able to make it one. If the woman doesn't like it, she can look for a different job and a different employer.

Since when did people start believing they have a RIGHT to a particular job?



What jobs?

The employer starts a business for HIS benefit. If the employee is of no benefit to him, he shouldn't have to retain her or him if a male creates a similar situation.

Ok. Well. I'm glad the law doesn't permit such discrimination as you have described. A person, man or woman, shouldn't have to sign away their right to be a parent in order to work and the law agrees. Men do take paternity leave and they adopt children and take time off for that a as well, in case you're wondering why I included men in that sentence.

I guess a business person could just not hire women? Would that be easier? (Although I do note in your version, only men start businesses.)

How do you feel about dads who take days off to take care of sick kids?

Cthulhu
09-18-2017, 07:42 PM
Cletus, I love you, sir, but everyone has a right to take a break. She chose to pump her breasts during her break. I don't see anything wrong with that at all.Might depend on where you are when you decide to drain the tanks.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cthulhu
09-18-2017, 07:55 PM
So women should put their job before having children? Or quit to have children and stay home once they are pregnant or having delivered?

Should employers be permitted not to hire women unless they commit to not getting pregnant?


My last question to cletus, to you as well. Also, should women be excluded from taking those jobs?Frankly it isn't wise to have female policemen or firefighters.

But having them at least contact to not get pregnant wouldn't be such a bad idea. It is a problem in the military and trashes unit readiness. But having them in the military makes as much sense as a firefighter or policemen. Take it how you will.

Upper body strength matters. Unit readiness matters. But feelings matter more I guess.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 08:08 PM
Frankly it isn't wise to have female policemen or firefighters.
But having them at least contact to not get pregnant wouldn't be such a bad idea. It is a problem in the military and trashes unit readiness. But having them in the military makes as much sense as a firefighter or policemen. Take it how you will.
Upper body strength matters. Unit readiness matters. But feelings matter more I guess.
Sent from my evil cell phone.

Yet, we don't hear that pregnant or breast pumping women, or women in general, cause extraordinary problems in police or fire departments or in the military. Women are in these positions, all over the the country and world. Israel has had women in their military, since before 1948 and in combat positions since 2000.

Peter1469
09-18-2017, 08:10 PM
Yet, we don't hear that pregnant or breast pumping women, or women in general, cause extraordinary problems in police or fire departments or in the military. Women are in these positions, all over the the country and world. Israel has had women in their military, since before 1948 and in combat positions since 2000.

Israel does not have women in combat units any more. Border guard units yes.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 08:20 PM
Israel does not have women in combat units any more. Border guard units yes.
Since when? I looked up the IDF page on the service of women, I don't see anything saying they were now banned from combat units. This article is from March of this year:


“Today, 85 percent of (combat) positions are open to women. We are also talking about opening more and more positions,” Stapleton said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-women/israels-women-combat-soldiers-on-frontline-of-battle-for-equality-idUSKBN16E23P

Could you point me towards a source that says women are not in combat units?

Peter1469
09-18-2017, 08:26 PM
Since when? I looked up the IDF page on the service of women, I don't see anything saying they were now banned from combat units. This article is from March of this year:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-women/israels-women-combat-soldiers-on-frontline-of-battle-for-equality-idUSKBN16E23P

Could you point me towards a source that says women are not in combat units?
Israeli women’s combat roles exaggerated, military traditionalists say (http://Israeli women’s combat roles exaggerated, military traditionalists say)


Their experiment to have women is combat failed.


But a closer look shows Israeli women are not in direct combat special operations such as the Green Berets. Nor are they in front-line combat brigades mobilized to engage in direct heavy combat.

In the infantry, virtually all of Israel (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/israel/)’s female combat soldiers are confined to two light battalions — the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan — which are assigned to guard the borders with Egypt and Jordan, the only Arab countries that have peace treaties with Israel (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/israel/)..

Your article is border guards.

Cletus
09-18-2017, 10:02 PM
Ok. Well. I'm glad the law doesn't permit such discrimination as you have described. A person, man or woman, shouldn't have to sign away their right to be a parent in order to work and the law agrees. Men do take paternity leave and they adopt children and take time off for that a as well, in case you're wondering why I included men in that sentence.

I guess a business person could just not hire women? Would that be easier? (Although I do note in your version, only men start businesses.)

How do you feel about dads who take days off to take care of sick kids?

I am not really interested in wasting my time helping you play victim. Go bother somebody else. When you grow up, maybe we can continue this discussion.

Cthulhu
09-18-2017, 11:28 PM
Yet, we don't hear that pregnant or breast pumping women, or women in general, cause extraordinary problems in police or fire departments or in the military. Women are in these positions, all over the the country and world. Israel has had women in their military, since before 1948 and in combat positions since 2000.Your house is on fire. You can't escape and need rescue.

Do you want a man to come attempt rescue? Or a woman of equal weight, training, and equipment?

...hint, the man has a better chance of success.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 11:38 PM
Israeli women’s combat roles exaggerated, military traditionalists say (http://Israeli women’s combat roles exaggerated, military traditionalists say)

Their experiment to have women is combat failed.
Your article is border guards.

Your link didn't work, but I'm going to assume it was this article from Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/25/womens-combat-roles-in-israel-defense-forces-exagg/

The only name given as a source is Elaine Donnelly. Clicking the link, goes to the results of Rowan Scarborough's articles. Who is Elaine Donnelly?

In addition to the Caracal, Bardalas and Lions of Jordan units a yet to be named fourth mixed sex battalion will be inaugurated this month and be ready for potential combat in November.
Around 1,200 young Israeli women are expected to volunteer for combat positions this year and those not deployed in combat-intelligence posts are set to be stationed in the Jordan Valley with the artillery corps or infantry on the Jordanian border
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4272384/Female-soldiers-Israel-s-Lions-Jordan.html#ixzz4t600EwvH
From that same article, 88% of all combat assignments are open to women. About 38% of women apply for combat duty.

O
ver the past four years the number of female soldiers in combat positions has risen by 3% however female soldiers still only amount to around 7% of all troops with the artillery corps or in foot soldier roles.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4272384/Female-soldiers-Israel-s-Lions-Jordan.html#ixzz4t61TS1bP


While not a significant number, they do have women in combat units. I admit I thought it was more, but I won't denigrate the rest as mere border police. That's a very dangerous border they patrol.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 11:40 PM
I am not really interested in wasting my time helping you play victim. Go bother somebody else. When you grow up, maybe we can continue this discussion.
Asking you to support your position is bothering you? Maybe you should consider not offering it if you don't want to stand behind it.

Nicole
09-18-2017, 11:41 PM
Your house is on fire. You can't escape and need rescue.

Do you want a man to come attempt rescue? Or a woman of equal weight, training, and equipment?

...hint, the man has a better chance of success.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

And yet again, we don't read stories of women fire fighters failing to do their jobs.

Cthulhu
09-19-2017, 12:29 AM
And yet again, we don't read stories of women fire fighters failing to do their jobs.Because most women are smart enough to do a job suited for them. Those fields are male dominated for a good reason.

Just like social workers and shrinks are female dominated.

So who would you prefer to attempt your rescue? Man or woman?

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cletus
09-19-2017, 01:33 AM
Asking you to support your position is bothering you? Maybe you should consider not offering it if you don't want to stand behind it.

I stood behind it and explained it at a level a 4th grader could understand. If you couldn't figure it out, that is on you.

You immediately decided to toss out the "discrimination" card. There was nothing discriminatory in anything I said. I can explain this stuff to you, but I can't make you respond like an adult. You have to do that yourself.

Here, let me give you a chance to shine. Tell me what was discriminatory in my stated position. Don't just claim discrimination, show me where and what it is.

Common
09-19-2017, 04:32 AM
And yet again, we don't read stories of women fire fighters failing to do their jobs.

You dont read stories about it because they dont print them, I will share one with you.
Philadelphia Fire Dept in the early 70s had to hire X amount of female fire fighters. For decades PFD taped training sessions of firefighters during certain aspects of training. One of the big parts of training back then was being able to carry and stand up a 40' ladder. Time and time again the women could not do it. Men in the past that couldnt do it were fired out of the academy. It was always a must do to pass. The FD was told to get rid of the tapes and stop taping training, they were told they could not fire the females.

Because you dont read it doesnt make it so.

Adelaide
09-19-2017, 08:40 AM
Frankly it isn't wise to have female policemen or firefighters.

But having them at least contact to not get pregnant wouldn't be such a bad idea. It is a problem in the military and trashes unit readiness. But having them in the military makes as much sense as a firefighter or policemen. Take it how you will.

Upper body strength matters. Unit readiness matters. But feelings matter more I guess.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

I am probably going to be working in law enforcement (federal), and I see no reason a woman would be unable to do so.

Cthulhu
09-19-2017, 08:54 AM
I am probably going to be working in law enforcement (federal), and I see no reason a woman would be unable to do so.Upper body strength. Most criminals are male. Not all of them come with cooperation. Putting a female in that situation is tactically unsound.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Adelaide
09-19-2017, 09:01 AM
Upper body strength. Most criminals are male. Not all of them come with cooperation. Putting a female in that situation is tactically unsound.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

The difference being that law enforcement get training, especially at the federal level with the various training facilities you spend 6 months at. It makes up for a lack of strength if you can fight "smart."

That said, I specialized in homeland security and counterterrorism. Probably more of a desk job than other areas. All depends on the graduate program I complete next year.

Green Arrow
09-19-2017, 01:37 PM
Court got this one right. Misanthropes and misogynists can get bent.

Cthulhu
09-19-2017, 01:41 PM
The difference being that law enforcement get training, especially at the federal level with the various training facilities you spend 6 months at. It makes up for a lack of strength if you can fight "smart."

That said, I specialized in homeland security and counterterrorism. Probably more of a desk job than other areas. All depends on the graduate program I complete next year.For desk jobs and detective work - no beef at all. In fact I encourage it.

But where direct combat is part of your job description? Bad idea, training or otherwise.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cletus
09-19-2017, 04:15 PM
Court got this one right. Misanthropes and misogynists can get bent.

It is a bad law. It was a bad decision.

I keep waiting for you to get something right. Have you got an ETA on that?

Nicole
09-20-2017, 11:53 AM
Because most women are smart enough to do a job suited for them. Those fields are male dominated for a good reason.

Just like social workers and shrinks are female dominated.

So who would you prefer to attempt your rescue? Man or woman?

Sent from my evil cell phone.
Yes, women are very smart to do jobs for which they are suited and women firefighters are obviously suited for that job, should they qualify.

I'm for whoever shows up to do the job. Obviously they are qualified.

Green Arrow
09-20-2017, 12:03 PM
It is a bad law. It was a bad decision.

I keep waiting for you to get something right. Have you got an ETA on that?

Ooh, that's original.

Kalkin
09-20-2017, 12:14 PM
I need to see her breasts to decide whether or not I agree with the verdict.

Nicole
09-20-2017, 12:21 PM
I stood behind it and explained it at a level a 4th grader could understand. If you couldn't figure it out, that is on you.
You immediately decided to toss out the "discrimination" card. There was nothing discriminatory in anything I said. I can explain this stuff to you, but I can't make you respond like an adult. You have to do that yourself.
Here, let me give you a chance to shine. Tell me what was discriminatory in my stated position. Don't just claim discrimination, show me where and what it is.

I asked you a series of questions, and you refused to answer the last of them:



http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cletus http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2152140#post2152140)
She should have resigned when she got pregnant instead of becoming a burden on her department.
Does that go for all jobs that women hold?


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cletus http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2152666#post2152666)
It depends on the burden she places on her employer. If the employer is fine with her taking x amount of time off and not replacing her and understanding that a newborn is going to have certain requirements that will affect work performance, that is great.
What is not great is an employer being forced by law to accept that.



So women should put their job before having children? Or quit to have children and stay home once they are pregnant or having delivered?

Should employers be permitted not to hire women unless they commit to not getting pregnant?




http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Cletus http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2152771#post2152771)
That is between them and their employer. If he wants them back and is willing to work around their schedule, more power to them. However, if he is not willing to do so, he shouldn't be required to do so.


If that is a something the employer wants as a condition of employment, he should be able to make it one. If the woman doesn't like it, she can look for a different job and a different employer.

Since when did people start believing they have a RIGHT to a particular job?



What jobs?

The employer starts a business for HIS benefit. If the employee is of no benefit to him, he shouldn't have to retain her or him if a male creates a similar situation.



Ok. Well. I'm glad the law doesn't permit such discrimination as you have described. A person, man or woman, shouldn't have to sign away their right to be a parent in order to work and the law agrees. Men do take paternity leave and they adopt children and take time off for that a as well, in case you're wondering why I included men in that sentence.

I guess a business person could just not hire women? Would that be easier? (Although I do note in your version, only men start businesses.)

How do you feel about dads who take days off to take care of sick kids?

You did not answer those last questions and instead suggested I was being childish for asking them. I'm asking you to explain, does your exclusion of parental responsibilities extend to men? Men will want paternity leave for newborns or when they take home their adopted child. They also require time off to care for sick kids. Should men have to commit to not taking paternity leave or as a condition of accepting job as you said earlier?

There is nothing childish about asking these questions to see where you stand on men in the workplace. If you have different standards for men as it relates to being a parent than women, that's discriminatory.

Nicole
09-20-2017, 12:23 PM
You dont read stories about it because they dont print them, I will share one with you.
Philadelphia Fire Dept in the early 70s had to hire X amount of female fire fighters. For decades PFD taped training sessions of firefighters during certain aspects of training. One of the big parts of training back then was being able to carry and stand up a 40' ladder. Time and time again the women could not do it. Men in the past that couldnt do it were fired out of the academy. It was always a must do to pass. The FD was told to get rid of the tapes and stop taping training, they were told they could not fire the females.

Because you dont read it doesnt make it so.

Please link such stories?

Captain Obvious
09-20-2017, 03:03 PM
So all this proves is that women aren't fit to serve in any and all roles.

Gotcha, we already knew that though, PC and prograsshats are just starting to catch up.

I hope that when I need a cop in an emergency they aren't taking breaks to feed the kid.

Captain Obvious
09-20-2017, 03:05 PM
btw, she's kind of cute, maybe I just need handcuffed.

Cletus
09-20-2017, 04:26 PM
Ooh, that's original.

It is true.

Cletus
09-20-2017, 04:29 PM
I asked you a series of questions, and you refused to answer the last of them:

If I didn't answer it is because I either overlooked it or decided it wasn't worth my time.


You did not answer those last questions and instead suggested I was being childish for asking them. I'm asking you to explain, does your exclusion of parental responsibilities extend to men? Men will want paternity leave for newborns or when they take home their adopted child. They also require time off to care for sick kids. Should men have to commit to not taking paternity leave or as a condition of accepting job as you said earlier?

If the employer wants that as a condition of employment, yes.


There is nothing childish about asking these questions to see where you stand on men in the workplace. If you have different standards for men as it relates to being a parent than women, that's discriminatory.

You made the accusation before you even knew my position. That's childish.

The issue is not about men and women. The issue is about what the employer thinks best serves his needs. Male, female... it doesn't matter one whit.

Nicole
09-24-2017, 10:47 PM
If I didn't answer it is because I either overlooked it or decided it wasn't worth my time.
If the employer wants that as a condition of employment, yes.
You made the accusation before you even knew my position. That's childish.

The issue is not about men and women. The issue is about what the employer thinks best serves his needs. Male, female... it doesn't matter one whit.

You made the issue women from the get-go:


She should have resigned when she got pregnant instead of becoming a burden on her department.

There you are post 9. You didn't mention men, yourself, ever. I asked you at post 31, how do you feel about men and your response was:


I am not really interested in wasting my time helping you play victim. Go bother somebody else. When you grow up, maybe we can continue this discussion.

So here we are. You refuse to answer my question with regard to men (which I asked to determine if you were discriminating against women rather than just against pregnant women an nursing mothers) and now you are accusing me of playing the discrimination card. If the issue was not about men or women, you should have said so from the beginning.

Cthulhu
09-24-2017, 11:07 PM
Yes, women are very smart to do jobs for which they are suited and women firefighters are obviously suited for that job, should they qualify.

I'm for whoever shows up to do the job. Obviously they are qualified.So who would you rather show up to rescue you?

It's okay to answer honestly. Nobody can do anything to you.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Cletus
09-25-2017, 12:40 AM
You made the issue women from the get-go:

The thread is about a woman. Not many men breastfeed.


There you are post 9. You didn't mention men, yourself, ever. I asked you at post 31, how do you feel about men and your response was:

Again, the thread is not about men. It is about a specific case that involves a woman and her relationship with her employer.


So here we are. You refuse to answer my question with regard to men (which I asked to determine if you were discriminating against women rather than just against pregnant women an nursing mothers) and now you are accusing me of playing the discrimination card. If the issue was not about men or women, you should have said so from the beginning.

I actually did answer your question. When you whined about it the first time, I went back and read it and answered it. The answer to the question you asked was "Yes". If the issue surrounded a male and paternity leave, I would feel the same way about it. Unless the employer fathered the kid, he should not be burdened by it. It doesn't matter whether it is the mother or the father who wants the time off. If the employer decides they are not of enough value to his organization to justify either passing their work to someone else and placing an extra burden on that employee or hiring a temporary employee to fill the gap, he should be able to terminate their employment and find someone willing to do the job.

Now, I don't particularly like answering the same question more than once, but since you didn't seem to get it the first time, I thought I would try it again.

Cletus
09-25-2017, 12:43 AM
So here we are. You refuse to answer my question with regard to men (which I asked to determine if you were discriminating against women rather than just against pregnant women an nursing mothers) and now you are accusing me of playing the discrimination card. If the issue was not about men or women, you should have said so from the beginning.

I answered your question in response #60, the response immediately before you made the above statement in response #61. :rollseyes:

Perianne
09-25-2017, 10:55 AM
So who would you rather show up to rescue you?
It's okay to answer honestly. Nobody can do anything to you.
Sent from my evil cell phone.
Since none of them want to answer you, I will. If I am in need of rescue, I want the biggest, strongest MAN to come for me. I am little - though very strong for someone so little - but I cannot compare to a big, strong man...or even an average man.

Cthulhu
09-26-2017, 07:18 AM
Since none of them want to answer you, I will. If I am in need of rescue, I want the biggest, strongest MAN to come for me. I am little - though very strong for someone so little - but I cannot compare to a big, strong man...or even an average man.Any normal person would agree. But some prefer to toe the party line at the expense of survivability.

They are a pack of fools.

Sent from my evil cell phone.

Nicole
10-01-2017, 02:34 AM
The thread is about a woman. Not many men breastfeed.Again, the thread is not about men. It is about a specific case that involves a woman and her relationship with her employer.I actually did answer your question. When you whined about it the first time, I went back and read it and answered it. The answer to the question you asked was "Yes". If the issue surrounded a male and paternity leave, I would feel the same way about it. Unless the employer fathered the kid, he should not be burdened by it. It doesn't matter whether it is the mother or the father who wants the time off. If the employer decides they are not of enough value to his organization to justify either passing their work to someone else and placing an extra burden on that employee or hiring a temporary employee to fill the gap, he should be able to terminate their employment and find someone willing to do the job.

Now, I don't particularly like answering the same question more than once, but since you didn't seem to get it the first time, I thought I would try it again.

You didn't answer it the first time at #38:


I am not really interested in wasting my time helping you play victim. Go bother somebody else. When you grow up, maybe we can continue this discussion.

You didn't want to answer then, but once called on it, you thought better of it. Again, being straightforward to begin with, would have saved time. You take care now.

Common
10-01-2017, 03:50 AM
Theres only one reasonable resolution to this problem, she takes a leave of absence until the baby is on solid food.

Police Depts must run 24/7 if its a very large dept like NYPD or other major city, it could be worked out but smaller depts its a huge imposition to have her brought off duty drive to the baby feed it come back and switch again.

The baby cant stay in the precinct, she has to be relieved on the road, drive to the precinct or headquarters, park her patrol car, get in hers, drive home feed the baby and drive back. Seriously!!!!! anyone reasonable can understand what a HUGE imposition this is and she wants to get paid while doing this ? every time she has to feed the baby it could take 3 hrs or more.

Brett Nortje
10-03-2017, 03:53 AM
Well, if we were to observe that it is nudity, and, against the social norms of society, western culture, if you will, then we could also say that a child could walk in there and touch her boob, in curiosity, yes? this could cause some problems, no doubt!

Rights for [1:0]. social norms, against [1:1]. case for perversion of departments with little kids coming in? [1:2]. so far, it looks bleak for this lady in uniform...

Then, what about if she was to find some way to send him away, like, to creche? this would be where she would send the child to a church funded 'breast feeding welfare outreach program,' or, could be assigned to 'drive bys?' maybe she could do some driving around in a patrol car to 'feed on the move' and avoid the ire of the departments, imagine a 'boob in wheels?'

So, although she is wrong, she could have her job back, yes?

Cletus
10-03-2017, 04:25 AM
You didn't answer it the first time at #38:

You should consider yourself lucky that I responded to you, at all.

You didn't want to answer then, but once called on it, you thought better of it.

Horseshit. I answered so you would stop the whining. It obviously didn't work.