[ RadSafe ] Pregnancy Discrimination In The WorkplaceTargetOfNewEEOC Crackdown
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Sun Sep 30 15:08:53 CDT 2012
Thank you for your thoughtful mail, which confirms for me, that there are quite a few people at RADSAFE who "look behind the curtain" (literallily translated from a German proverb).
I cannot tell you about the impact on US female workers, being exposed to ionizing radiation, but let me tell you about the situation in Austria, which I suppose is valid for everywhere in Europe.
Any woman is legally obliged to notify the employer of a pregnancy. Then she is protected from being fired for a long time even after delivery. There is a long time when she will receive (possibly reduced) payment. Sorry, I do not know the exact data, it is more than 30 years since my last child was born.
As to female Radiation Workers: According to the Austrian Radiation Protection Law, a pregnant "Radiation Worker" is not allowed to continue work at the same place, but she has to be transferred to a working place without radiation exposure within the same facility and - as mentioned above - without any decrease of income. I am not really well informed, but similar legislation seem to apply to most, if not all European member states.
For us Europeans it is not understandable, why the US-Republicans are so fiercely against "Obama-Care". It works perfectly well in Europe. We pay a certain percentage of our income to a kind of fund and then we are insured to most common medical treatments, injuries and even very complicated medical and surgical treatment. A few years ago I suffered a coronary infarction, three stents were implanted (BTW: I agreed on radioactive ones!) and the final bill for me was a few Euros (dollars) for the stay at the hogen<ospital. Taxes seem to me to be relatively high (expressed in %), but it pays off in such cases like my coronary infarction. What is the advantage of paying a few cents less for bread, butter and sausage over paying thousands of dollars in the case of a life threatening medical emergency? It seems to be like the Austrian strategy on Radon reduction - the idea was not only to reduce the peaks, but parallel the average exposure.
Sensational articles in some papers or journals will not help at all to reduce exposure to employees and their progeny.
OK, this is my European opinion, which will be met by the fierce criticism of the US hardliners on RADSAFE. Never mind, I enjoy my social security, my high taxes on food, houses etc, which prevent me from being forced to work at age 68 at a McDonald for a few dollars a day.
N <royherren2005 at yahoo.com> schrieb:
> Dear Radsafe mailing list members,
> Does anyone have an opinions on how the following article, see below, and how
> it's subject matter will affect US female workers who are exposed to ionizing
> radiation? In my humble opinion I think the safest route may well be for
> employers to provide the worker "reasonable accommodation". Reasonable
> accommodation doesn't mean automatically reassigning the worker, but rather
> after she has self-identified as wanting to declare her pregnancy to management,
> working with her to provide her with the information that she needs to determine
> what she would like to do, or needs to do for her career and her pregnancy.
> Roy Herren
> Pregnancy Discrimination In The Workplace Target Of New EEOC Crackdown
> Posted: 09/29/2012 5:20 pm EDT Updated: 09/29/2012 8:31 pm EDT
> WASHINGTON -- During the past week, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission
> (EEOC) has filed four pregnancy discrimination related lawsuits and settled a
> fifth -- just weeks after the government's workplace discrimination law
> enforcement arm announced a plan to target employers who illegally discriminate
> against pregnant women.
> On Sept. 20, a California security guard company, Quest Intelligence Group, was
> sued after a female employee, Tabitha Feeney, was fired from her job during her
> maternity leave. When Feeney tried to return to work, she was told the company
> had no open positions, but would call her as soon as it did. Quest never called
> Feeney, but hired a number of male guards while she waited to return to her job.
> "Losing my job and facing a brand-new job search right after giving birth was
> incredibly stressful," Feeney said in a statement. "I had a new baby to support
> and no income. I had planned on going back to my job, and it was devastating to
> lose that."
> Also facing a lawsuit this week is Bayou City Wings, a Baytown, Texas-based
> restaurant chain that allegedly fired at least eight female employees because
> they got pregnant. According to the EEOC complaint, a Bayou City Wings employee
> handbook specifically instructed managers to fire pregnant employees three
> months into their pregnancies. One manager said this was because keeping the
> women working would "be irresponsible in respect to her child's safety." The
> manager was also afraid he would be punished "for not following procedures" if
> he didn't fire the women.
> A third suit, also involving a restaurant, was filed against J's Seafood in
> Panama City, Fla., which was sued Thursday for discrimination after firing two
> pregnant waitresses, shortly after the women told their manager they were
> pregnant. "The restaurant told the employees that their pregnancies caused them
> to be a liability to the company," said the EEOC.
> Employee instructions about how to handle pregnancies were also at issue in a
> fourth case, involving the Muskegon River Youth Home, a juvenile detention
> center in Evart, Mich. The center currently requires "employees to immediately
> notify the company once the employee learns she is pregnant, and requires her to
> produce a certification from her doctor that she is capable of continuing to
> work." In this case, the EEOC is seeking an injunction to prevent the home from
> carrying out the policy.
> Cases of women being fired after notifying employers they are pregnant are all
> too common. Chemcore, a plumbing products company, agreed this week to pay
> $30,000 to settle EEOC charges that the company fired Marie Simmons, a customer
> service rep, mere hours after she told a supervisor she was pregnant.
> "Too many employers continue to penalize their female work force because of
> pregnancy," said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director of the EEOC's
> Birmingham District, referring to the case against J's Seafood. "This lawsuit
> sends the message that employers need to hear -- stop discriminating against
> pregnant employees."
> According to Detroit employment lawyer Louis Theros, a partner at Butzel Long,
> the high turnover rates and decentralized management structure prevalent at
> chain restaurants and retail stores make them a hotbed of discrimination
> lawsuits. "Many of the managers have little-to no contact with corporate HR," he
> said, "and a major question for them is whether they should act independently to
> 'fix' an issue, or whether they should risk reporting what could reflect badly
> on them as a manager."
> In the cases of illegal policies, like those at Bayou City Wings and Muskegon
> River Youth Home, Theros said it's unlikely a lawyer reviewed them before they
> were established, because if they had, the policies would have set off
> "atomic-level red flags."
> Currently, the EEOC only has the resources to prosecute a fraction of the
> complaints it receives each year. Many more are settled before they get to court
> through mediation, where the plaintiff gets a monetary settlement and the
> employer avoids a lawsuit.
> But taken together, all five cases likely represent early steps in the EEOC's
> plan to tackle pregnancy discrimination and employer accommodation of pregnant
> employees over the coming year, a subject it labels "an emerging issue."
> The plan dovetails with efforts by Democrats in Congress to pass the Pregnant
> Workers Fairness Act, a bill which would ensure that pregnant women are allowed
> the same reasonable accommodations currently available to people with
> All this comes as good news to Emily Martin, vice president and general counsel
> of the National Women's Law Center. "I'm very heartened to see the EEOC step up
> on this," she told HuffPost.
> Government action is especially important, she said, because in cases of
> employment discrimination "the employer has access to a lot of information the
> employee doesn't have, so it's often difficult for women to even realize they're
> being discriminated against." This is especially true "when you're talking about
> lower wage workers, who are less likely to assert their rights, and often more
> vulnerable to retaliation by supervisors or managers."
> Theros also has taken note of the EEOC's interest in pregnancy discrimination,
> and said he would be making a point of discussing this with his clients.
> "If the EEOC has put it on their plates, then my clients would do well to be
> even more cognizant about what they are doing with pregnant employees," he told
> HuffPost. "By issuing a strategic plan, the EEOC is essentially shooting a
> flare, giving employers a heads-up that, 'we're going to push this issue over
> the next few years.'"
> "I've told clients for years that they should consider treating pregnant women's
> accommodations the exact same way they do with other people with temporary
> injuries," he said. "But now, do I go back to them and say that recent signs
> point to a broader scope of accommodation in the future? You bet I do."
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227
More information about the RadSafe