(10-15-2019 07:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 07:22 PM)tanqtonic 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:  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.

And there you go again applying post 1978 law to a 1971 situation. Do you see the problem there?

Again, lost the thread. We’ve been discussing both the general practice of discriminating against pregnant women, and the specific case of Warren.

When I talk about legal discrimination I am not trying to backdate it to Warren.

OO talks specifically about the Warren issue and the law then. Fountain throws a load of gobbledygook into the mix by responding to Warren then mixing in the standard of today.

Then you jump in the with the standard of today.

I suggest you actually respond to the post of OO instead of answering comments that are directed to Warren with responses on todays standard. Reading.

You two jumped the shark on OOs post by responding to it without reading it.