Anyone see this article?
What do you think?
Thanks to Katie for my wonderful siggie!
I am INFURIATED by this and can not believe a court ruled in this companies favor.
That ruling is a steaming pile of bull-pucky! It makes me very upset with the woman's lawyer who somehow failed to make a good case during the hearing. It seems like even some of the judges acknowledged that they couldn't rule in her favor because her lawyer failed to do this. Ugg!!
Wow... How can a judge rule like this and keep his/her head up???
This is very ridiculous. I cannot believe that they would fire someone for pumping or should I say "taking unauthorized breaks". I mean I get that you shouldn't take several breaks throughout the day, but if my work is getting done then who are you to tell me that. I bf my second DD for 11 months and I was back at work when she was 3 months. I pumped 2-3 times a day for 10-15 minutes at a time. If I had diahrrea or a urinary problem could they fire you for going to the bathroom several times a day.
This is just another way of discrimating on women for having families. I think it really sucks and this case should have went in her favor.
I agree with Ella and will not be buying anymore Totes products. Even if it doesn't hurt them I will not be a part of financing them.
ITA with everyone - it really made my blood boil! The problem I see is that the law sees this as SUCH a black and white issue! Yes, she did take unauthorized breaks, but it was because she had to PUMP her BREAST for MILK for her CHILD. Hello??? What is wrong with these people??
First of all, them trying to say that it's not sexist is BS - unless men can breastfeed now. Second, you know this wouldn't be an issue if it was some guy with prostate problems that had to pee every 15 minutes. It's just ridiculous, and they should feel ashamed of themselves.
I agree with the PP that said the lawyer must have done an awful job to get the judgment though. They shouldn't have agreed to the "unauthorized break" thing in the first place - because she fully admitted to that. It should have been a discrimination suit. Granted, I don't know much about the law, so I may be way off base.