(10-15-2019 05:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 04:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 04:16 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 04:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, I'm glad I'm not always taking crazy pills.

Like I said, this was 1970.

Now, who has testified that Warren was the best candidate?

Also, it is not the ability to do the job while pregnant that is the issue, it the immediate leave of absence.

As a practical matter, I am sure most employers would choose an employee who could be on the job, but be smart enough NOT to tell the pregnant applicant it is because she would not be there when needed. All ya got to do is say, IMO, the other applicant was better.


Of course, we also do not have anybody telling her it was because she was pregnant. That is just her supposition, 50 years later, when she is running for office.

And need I restate that she was unqualified for the position, when you keep emphasizing she was the best candidate?

OOwl, you've lost the thread.

No one has claimed she was the best candidate. People are just here trying to explain how employment discrimination works. If the best candidate is pregnant and isn't hired because the employer doesn't want them to miss time shortly after being on-boarded, that's sex discrimination.

Bingo.

It's why during the interview process you don't even think about asking candidates about their martial status, their religion, etc. No reason to even think about those issues (and others like them), since there is legislation in place that makes it illegal to discriminate in hiring based on items X, Y, and Z.

So if she was not the best candidate, what is the problem with not hiring her? Pregnant or not.

Remember, it was Warren who said it was because she was pregnant, not the hirerers. so if she wasn't the best candidate to begin with, what does it matter?

We have no idea if she was the best candidate.

This gets to Tanq’s theory (which is plausible, less I be accused of ignoring it...) that she didn’t actually have the requirements to teach and the extension she equals given in April was contingent upon her getting the appropriate qualifications.

Unfortunately, the minutes don’t provide enough detail for either side of the argument to be completely verified or disproved.