(10-16-2019 05:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 07:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 07:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 07:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

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

You would be correct (partially) if Warren were denied the job post-1978. Last I saw, 1971 < 1978.

lad keeps stating the current law, that if the pregnant person is the best candidate then denying the position would create a cause of action. lad keeps saying the 'best candidate' mantra as he explains the current state of the law to OO.

However, stating the rule of the current state of the law has zero meaning with the situation in 1971. Much like you stating the current rule of law has zero bearing on a decision (if it was made for that reason) in 1971.

Explaining how 'employment discrimination works' is somewhat stupid. It would be akin to saying that the marriage of Bill and George in Texas in 1979 wasnt against the law -- it was. The fact that that law was deemed illegal in 2019 has zero importance as to what it was back then. It is idiotic to use a current rule of law to assess an issue that existed prior to that law being in existence.

Even *if* Warren was drummed because of pregnancy (and fing heaven forbid that she didnt have, nor ever held a gd teaching certificate) it is stupid to say that the board was guilty of sex discrimination.

Looks like you lost the thread too.

Looks like you didnt bother to read OOs thread, and myna birded a present day response to the topic he addressed.

You serious?

OO was the first person who brought up the present day when discussing Warren by asking how my company would handle hiring a pregnant woman. Are you going to try and argue he meant if my company would hire a pregnant woman in 1971?

https://csnbbs.com/thread-881363-post-16...id16371827

OO split his comments into two: one portion dealing with Warren; one with present day ---you two kept responding to everyone of them as though it was a present day discussion.

OOs comment in the original above was talking specifically about the first portion --- Warren. You two kept talking over that. Just read the back and forth quoted above.

7/8 of OO's comments that Fountain responded to above are on the Warren issue, that is the original thread. Fountain responded in a comment that said 'no one said *she* [Warren] was the best candidate.' The proceeded to dissect that situation as though it happened today and not 1971.

You jump in and respond to it in a holy furor that he 'lost the thread' --- he didnt. He kept the context between the two. You all did not.