Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Stuck on the East Coast, hoping to head West
4,640 posts, read 11,934,552 times
Reputation: 9885
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibit612
Eventually, the quality of her job will suffer due to her condition. Not only will she endanger herself, but potentially could endanger your mother while in her care. I would get a replacement and just avoid all the headaches of a potential lawsuit.
Says who? What drivel.
The OP could solve all of her problems by not hiring any women of child-bearing years to begin with. OOhhhh, I know, then she could have women give her a doctor's note that states they're infertile or menopausal. oooh, and if she hires a "man" she could have them get a doctor's note to prove that they're not transgendered and actually have a working uterus. Because you just can't be too careful.
The OP could solve all of her problems by not hiring any women of child-bearing years to begin with. OOhhhh, I know, then she could have women give her a doctor's note that states they're infertile or menopausal. oooh, and if she hires a "man" she could have them get a doctor's note to prove that they're not transgendered and actually have a working uterus. Because you just can't be too careful.
Can you be anymore extreme? The OP hired the woman to include lifting an elderly person. I don't know if you are a woman, or have ever been pregnant, but a pregnant woman, because of her condition, does not exactly have the best sense of balance. Forget about lifting anything heavy, and forget about lifting an elderly person out of the tub...sheesh!
Can you be anymore extreme? The OP hired the woman to include lifting an elderly person. I don't know if you are a woman, or have ever been pregnant, but a pregnant woman, because of her condition, does not exactly have the best sense of balance. Forget about lifting anything heavy, and forget about lifting an elderly person out of the tub...sheesh!
Believe it or not, women have been caregivers for centuries, even while pregnant. As has been reiterated multiple times on this thread, pregnancy is neither a disease nor an illness.
And all of the suggestions you have made are illegal, obviously. It doesn't matter what the job is, you can't fire someone, or refuse to hire them, based on their health status or your perceived notions about their health status. You have to have a legal basis for doing so.
This thread is really interesting so I did some research. Below are my findings: General Coverage
If a complaint against a business (or some other private employer) involves race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, the business is covered by the laws we enforce if it has15 or more employees who worked for the employer for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last).
(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of Title 5 [United States Code]), or
(2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of Title 26 [theInternal Revenue Code of 1986], except that during the first year after March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Act of 1972], persons having fewer than twenty-*five employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers.
Believe it or not, women have been caregivers for centuries, even while pregnant. As has been reiterated multiple times on this thread, pregnancy is neither a disease nor an illness.
And all of the suggestions you have made are illegal, obviously. It doesn't matter what the job is, you can't fire someone, or refuse to hire them, based on their health status or your perceived notions about their health status. You have to have a legal basis for doing so.
This situation involves lifting an elderly woman in and out of bed, in and out of the shower. Are you familiar with dead weight?
It is ridiculous to think as the pregnancy continues that she would be able to do that.
Again, this is not a company. This is a situation where someone was hired directly to work in a home.
She most certainly can be let go, at any time for any reason.
The OP is thinking about her mother and trying to get a heads up as to how much longer this woman will continue.
Considering the background of this caregiver who has a few kids already without being married, she could easily turn around and say "oh this is my last week", leaving the OP and her mother in the lurch.
This thread is really interesting so I did some research. Below are my findings: General Coverage
If a complaint against a business (or some other private employer) involves race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, the business is covered by the laws we enforce if it has15 or more employees who worked for the employer for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last).
(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of Title 5 [United States Code]), or
(2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of Title 26 [theInternal Revenue Code of 1986], except that during the first year after March 24, 1972 [the date of enactment of the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Act of 1972], persons having fewer than twenty-*five employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers.
Based on the above, it appears OP is not subject to laws protecting pregnancy.
Bibit, you have completely misinterpreted the statement by EEOC. The statement does NOT state that OP is free to commit discrimination because OP has fewer than 15 employees.
Rather, it states simply that EEOC is not the agency that enforces the law when the employer employs fewer than 15 people.
Bibit, you have completely misinterpreted the statement by EEOC. The statement does NOT state that OP is free to commit discrimination because OP has fewer than 15 employees.
Rather, it states simply that EEOC is not the agency that enforces the law when the employer employs fewer than 15 people.
If it is not the EEOC that enforces the law, then which agency does? Where would it say that she is committing discrimination and doing something illegal? My husband has a small business employing 2 part timers. I certainly am interested in the subject. I can't find where it is that what she may have to do is illegal...that's why I'm looking for a citation on law. Can you find one and post? What I get from the link is that she is not even considered an employer under the guidelines. If there is one that applies to a small business with as many employees as she has, then by all means, post it in here.
ETA: I searched for any information for employers with less than 15 and could not find any. Title VII is the federal law, and the EEOC is the only agency that makes decisions regarding discrimination in the workplace. I found this as well.
"The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, prohibits employers from discriminating against job seekers and employees on the basis of race, religion, sex, pregnancy, and national origin. Private employers with less than 15 employees are not subject to the Act. However, some states do not set numerical limits. California, for example, prohibits racial or sexual discrimination no matter how few workers the company employs. Before an employee may file a employment discrimination lawsuit in court, he or she must first present the charge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If the employee fails to file an EEOC charge within the required time period, any federal claim under Title VII will not be allowed. Also, if an employer is a public entity such as a government agency, municipality, hospital district or public school district, an employee with a claim under Title VII must first file administrative complaints or requests for review before going to the courthouse."
I don't see any exception in this directive, i.e. file a charge somewhere else other than the EEOC, if you have less than 15 employees.
Kodaka, I've always respected your views in this forum, but you have not provided anything yet to back up your position besides belaboring the point that it isn't the EEOC that rules on this issue.
Last edited by BagongBuhay; 09-01-2011 at 08:18 PM..
Reason: addition
People really need to understand the laws if they are going to be bashing folks for breaking them. That is correct, the antidiscriminatory laws do NOT apply in my situation. Read the ACT not just the EEOC enforcement info
Directly from the Civil Rights Act
(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of Title 5 [United States Code]), or
Folks would next tell me that I have to bring a man into my house *if* he can do the job and not worry about the modesty issues for an 81 year old woman. Yes, during her short stay in the nursing home, she had to endure mail aides just as men had to endure women aides. But they employ more than 15 people and are subject to discrimination laws. Even so, they work to accomodate patients wishes on the matter. FWIW, when you deal with a private agency you CAN request that no men be sent. This is YOUR home by the way. Just taking it to a ridiculous extreme.
My concern was due to changes in physical structure possibly setting up for more back injury (loosening ligaments) and two inability to properly transfer because the lift in and out of bed requires a "bear hug" and the protruding belly *will* get in the way at some point.
And, yes, I have had two children of my own and worked until the end but I was NOT lifting and transferring another human being, and a frail one at that who is at the point where one fall could break her hip or other large bone (and being on coumadin that would complicate things) and result in bed confinement for the rest of her life.
I am subject to certain employment laws. I must file taxes and pay social security and medicare and state (my state requires) unemployment. I am subject to wage and hour regulations. I do not have to hire any qualified individual, nor do I need to accomodate their disabilities, or any other provisions associated with equal rights.
Location: Stuck on the East Coast, hoping to head West
4,640 posts, read 11,934,552 times
Reputation: 9885
As far as legality, even if the EEOC is not the governing agency. There are state anti-discriminatory laws that could apply. Also, the EAP section of the FLSA may be applicable in this case. I find it interesting that the OP isn't concerned that she's being discriminatory; just that she doesn't want to be held accountable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
