regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/19/85)
> Of course I, as an employer, am not allowed to ask such > silly questions as "Are you pregnant now? Do you plan to get pregnant > during the term of the assignment?". That is discriminatory and > against the law, you see. This question is discriminatory -- as it stands. You are, however, allowed to ask the question, "Do you have any commitments that would interfere with the work requirements of this job, covering the period (date) to (date)?" (You should ask this of both the male and female applicants. He may have 500 guppies at home that restrict his travel availability.) Then, you can write a contract (PLEASE use a lawyer as a safeguard) that states they certify that they anticipate _no_ interruption to their work capabilities during the specified time period. Under this type of contract, either a male or female employee who breached it because of prior commitment would be required to reimburse you for damages in some form. Now, if she got pregnant AFTER the day she signed the contract, you would have no recourse (after all, anything could happen to anybody that would would land them in a hospital after signing a contract). But if she were pregnant BEFORE and KNEW IT (as in the case you stated), she would be guilty of breaching her contract, and during the (probably inevitable) lawsuit, you could bring as evidence her prior knowledge of her condition, and even the EEOC can't support outright, blatant lying. Note: the difference here is LYING about AVAILABILITY, not LYING about PREGNANCY. Pregnancy is dealt with in many situations sort of like voluntary surgery. You know about it ahead of time, people you work with deserve to be informed so they can plan around your absense, but it is NOT grounds for discharge or discrimination. Think of it as a voluntary gall bladder operation -- it means an absence sometime in the near future, but no real diminution of either capabilities, or commitment to the work project. Also, as I've said, you can further protect yourself under the laws by asking this question of ALL applicants, not just women, and applying it's expectations to BOTH men and women. Maybe the guy didn't screw you over in this case, but you'd be a fool to hire only men in the future, because there is one with guppies out there waiting to take advantage of you, too. Adrienne Regard
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/23/85)
In article <573@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: >.... Then, you can >write a contract (PLEASE use a lawyer as a safeguard) that states they >certify that they anticipate _no_ interruption to their work capabilities >during the specified time period. Under this type of contract, either a >male or female employee who breached it because of prior commitment would >be required to reimburse you for damages in some form. > Basically, that is what I did. I have this really nice 17 page contract that says all that you suggested in wonderful legalese. I must ammend the last sentence: please add the following: "unless breach was caused by pregnancy". An employer has no option: pregnancy is a special condition. My lawyer put it to me this way: "You want to go before an <ethnic> judge and try to sue a pregnant women??" > >Also, as I've said, you can further protect yourself under the laws by >asking this question of ALL applicants, not just women, and applying it's >expectations to BOTH men and women. Maybe the guy didn't screw you over >in this case, but you'd be a fool to hire only men in the future, because >there is one with guppies out there waiting to take advantage of you, too. I'm gonna have to go back to Writing 101: I really didn't mean to imply that I would never hire a women again. Some of my best SO's are women! :-) What I meant to say is that a situation exists that is a special case, that can happen only to women, and that an employer really can do nothing about it. This special priv that a women has *may* cost her jobs. So having a maternity leave clause in a contract or special laws dealing with pregnancy may not benefit the women after all. As a side note: I have hired women since then and will continue to hire an *qualified* applicant as the need arises. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel