• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pushy preggers co-worker aggressively trying to get promotion

JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
she wants this position in another dept.
but her baby's due in Dec.
she said she's going on Maternity leave for just 3 weeks 😱

she wants this promotion. she thinks she deserves it. (entitlement bordering on Delusions of Grandeur)
everyone with an ounce of logic says WTFBBQ?!

upper mgmt is ball-less and is scared of lawsuits.

in a twisted way, this soap opera train wreck is actually amusing to watch
 
Last edited:
cbrunny said:
So? If she is the best candidate, isn't it against the law to not give it to her?
Click to expand...

no idea if she's the best candidate or not.

no one believes she's going to be out for just 3 weeks.
that dept is going to be screwed if she changes her mind after getting the job and decides to take 3months.
 
rudeguy said:
a business can do whatever the fuck it wants. The government does not control companies.

How hard is this concept to grasp?
Click to expand...

Uh.. that's not true at all.. you may want it to be true, but it's not.

In this particular case, it's probably not illegal to deny her a promotion since I don't think being pregnant is in any way considered protected.
 
bignateyk said:
Uh.. that's not true at all.. you may want it to be true, but it's not.

In this particular case, it's probably not illegal to deny her a promotion since I don't think being pregnant is in any way considered protected.
Click to expand...

Pregnancy Discrimination Act
 
bignateyk said:
Uh.. that's not true at all.. you may want it to be true, but it's not.

In this particular case, it's probably not illegal to deny her a promotion since I don't think being pregnant is in any way considered protected.
Click to expand...

Actually it is, courts have ruled since only women get pregnant than it is gender discrimination.
 
cbrunny said:
So? If she is the best candidate, isn't it against the law to not give it to her?
Click to expand...
I would say it depends on whether the child is her first. If it is, no way in hell she'd be out for so short and meanwhile a more productive person male or female would have been fulfilling their duties with the promotion and the bennies that go with it. It's one of the many, many sacrifices of raising kids...

LOL, those discrimination acts render the point moot.
 
PenguinPower said:
Sex discrimination. And it's an amendment to Title VII. This courts didn't have to rule anything.
Click to expand...

It use to be very common and for girls in HS to be expelled for getting pregnant. I am positive the courts ruled it an act of gender discrimination. That it violated their rights to equal protection under the law.
 
Last edited:
DCal430 said:
It use to be very common and for girls in HS to be expelled for getting pregnant. I am positive the courts ruled it an act of gender discrimination.
Click to expand...

1.) School does not equal workplace, so not sure why you bring that up as relevant.

2.) Gender = the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).

Pretty sure a dude who associates with being a chick can't get pregnant. Pregnancy would fall under sex discrimination, not gender.

3.) Gender is not protected on a federal level. edit: Though I should say the EEOC supports this, and it will vary based on court location.

3.) Pregnancy Discrimination Act

4.) Title VII

(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions;
Click to expand...
 
What if she end up not getting the promotion because someone is more qualified than her? What stopping her from suing using the sex discrimination card?
 
The easy way for the company to get around a lawsuit it is to leave the position unfulfilled while "looking for candidates". Unless there is a corporate policy that the jobs will be filled from within, you can blow six months by publicly posting the job for outside agencies. She can claim that she is best fit for the job within the company (whether true or not). But she cannot prove that she is a better fit that an outsider who hasn't applied yet.

Once she returns to work, you can safely appoint someone else to the role while removing her ability to claim that she was discriminated against because of pregnancy.

One of the great things about corporate America today is that there are a lot of high ranking women who've paid their dues. And most of them don't look kindly on younger women who think they're simply entitled to advancement.
 
skimple said:
The easy way for the company to get around a lawsuit it is to leave the position unfulfilled while "looking for candidates". Unless there is a corporate policy that the jobs will be filled from within, you can blow six months by publicly posting the job for outside agencies. She can claim that she is best fit for the job within the company (whether true or not). But she cannot prove that she is a better fit that an outsider who hasn't applied yet.

Once she returns to work, you can safely appoint someone else to the role while removing her ability to claim that she was discriminated against because of pregnancy.

One of the great things about corporate America today is that there are a lot of high ranking women who've paid their dues. And most of them don't look kindly on younger women who think they're simply entitled to advancement.
Click to expand...

The only problem I can see with this is keeping the position open through the calendar year change. Depending on how the companies financial years go I have seen issues with keeping a position if it is open through a Fiscal year change. Not saying it makes any sense but I have seen this where I work if a position like this is open so long and through the fiscal year change the Finance Dept will make the argument the position isn't really needed anymore and the open FTE disappears.
 
dn7309 said:
What if she end up not getting the promotion because someone is more qualified than her? What stopping her from suing using the sex discrimination card?
Click to expand...

Nothing. She would still have a burden to establish a prima facie case, and the employer would still be able to present a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not promoting. The only difference is they would have one in your scenario.
 
skimple said:
The easy way for the company to get around a lawsuit it is to leave the position unfulfilled while "looking for candidates". Unless there is a corporate policy that the jobs will be filled from within, you can blow six months by publicly posting the job for outside agencies. She can claim that she is best fit for the job within the company (whether true or not). But she cannot prove that she is a better fit that an outsider who hasn't applied yet.

Once she returns to work, you can safely appoint someone else to the role while removing her ability to claim that she was discriminated against because of pregnancy.

One of the great things about corporate America today is that there are a lot of high ranking women who've paid their dues. And most of them don't look kindly on younger women who think they're simply entitled to advancement.
Click to expand...

That's not even remotely true. Just because she returned doesn't mean she wouldn't have a claim.
 
JEDI said:
she wants this position in another dept.
but her baby's due in Dec.
she said she's going on Maternity leave for just 3 weeks 😱

she wants this promotion. she thinks she deserves it. (entitlement bordering on Delusions of Grandeur)
everyone with an ounce of logic says WTFBBQ?!

upper mgmt is ball-less and is scared of lawsuits.

in a twisted way, this soap opera train wreck is actually amusing to watch
Click to expand...

not your problem. Worry about your own self, let other people worry about it.
 
cbrunny said:
So? If she is the best candidate, isn't it against the law to not give it to her?
Click to expand...

are you fucking nuts? no it's not against the law.

rolf. god damn. no there is now law saying you have to give the highest qualified person the job because they are pregnant. lol
 
waggy said:
are you fucking nuts? no it's not against the law.

rolf. god damn. no there is now law saying you have to give the highest qualified person the job because they are pregnant. lol
Click to expand...

No, but there is a law saying that you can't skip over the most highly qualified candidate solely because she is pregnant, as that's discriminatory. They'll need to find some other qualification that she fails to meet or find a more highly qualified candidate or they could be looking at a lawsuit (though not necessarily a successful one).
 
Atomic Playboy said:
No, but there is a law saying that you can't skip over the most highly qualified candidate solely because she is pregnant, as that's discriminatory. They'll need to find some other qualification that she fails to meet or find a more highly qualified candidate or they could be looking at a lawsuit (though not necessarily a successful one).
Click to expand...

yes i know that. but that is not what he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top