Ohio court rules that Totes/Isotoner discrimination is ok

[indie]

:

This is just unbelievable to me. I've already informed Totes/Isotoner that I will no longer buy their products (which I've purchased in the past). We desperately need a federal law protecting lactating women since judges are too darn stupid to see that it is clearly sex discrimination.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/...ing/index.html

[caro113]

absolutely disgusting ... this is discrimination if I ever saw it!! I will no longer be shopping there either (we have a Totes store) although I am tempted to sit in the store and nurse. What can we do to make sure this doesnt happen again?

[nummies]

Do you have the Totes/ Isotoner contact information? I would love to send a letter stating that I will no longer be using their business.

[krystyn33]

I sure hope this gets enough press to get some laws changed.

[Beckamomof4]

Wow! Seriously?! They either wanted to already get rid of her or are complete morons!

And yea, this...


But he did say that even if you insist on separating Allen's extra breaks from her condition as a lactating mother, then they should be regarded no differently than unscheduled pee breaks. "There is no evidence in the record about any limit on the length of unscheduled restroom breaks and no evidence that employees had to seek permission from a supervisor to take an unscheduled restroom break. There is evidence only that unscheduled bathroom breaks were allowed and that LaNisa Allen was fired for taking them. What made her breaks different?" Ding ding ding!

[Minarai]

Originally Posted by krystyn33

I sure hope this gets enough press to get some laws changed.

Seconded.
To think this kind of discrimination is still the norm in our society...

[woodensandals]

Originally Posted by nummies

Do you have the Totes/ Isotoner contact information? I would love to send a letter stating that I will no longer be using their business.

I sent them a nastygram at [e-mail]

they may have won a court case, but they lost a customer.

[felix23]

Wow, this is horrible. : I will be sending them a not so happy e-mail.

[KimberlyD0]

Did you actually read everything?? She wasn't fired for pumping.

She was fired for taking extra unatherized brakes to pump. The headline is missleading. The courts agreed with the fireing, not because of her pumping, but because she failed to follow the contract that she had with the company bu taking unathorised brakes.

don't flame me but,

she was taking extra brakes that are not atherized then she deserves to be fired. Anyone else would have as well if they were taking 15+ minute brakes that were not authorised. She should have gone to the boss and made proper arrangments for pumping. Which she didn't she didn't ask, she didn't talk to anyone. She took it upon herself and left her work to do it.

Sorry but there are rules that should be followed. No matter who you were.

BTW the company did make arrangments for her to be able to pump. She agreed to them, and then decided they were not good enough and didn't try to make new arrangements, just did it herself.

[2xy]

I worked full time while nursing babies, and didn't need excessive breaks to pump milk. Why were her scheduled breaks not good enough?

I don't see this as breastfeeding discrimination. If someone had IBS or something and spent an inordinate amount of time in the restroom every single day, something would probably be done about that, too. I'm sure she knew how much her company would allow for her to be away from her desk.

[kriket]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

Did you actually read everything?? She wasn't fired for pumping.

She was fired for taking extra unatherized brakes to pump.

she was taking extra brakes that are not atherized then she deserves to be fired.

ITA, I'm an Ohioan so I was following this pretty closely. I was embarrassed that *she* brought pumping at work to the 'legal table' I feel like she was using pumping as an excuse to get more breaks at work

I'm not sure why Ohio is having malfunctions in the name of breastfeeding. We had the lady driving around with her kid sitting on the steering wheel nursing too. It makes the general public nervous of nursing moms. Like we are sitting there with our boobs out waiting for something to happen so we can file a lawsuit.

[MeganS]

I also worked full time, and had no issues pumping on my scheduled breaks. Couldn't someone argue that it would be sex discrimination if she were given extra breaks in order to pump? I wouldn't think it would be fair if she were given special treatment to pump.... I don't see how it would make a difference if they considered it to be pregnancy related either.... I worked full time throughout both of my pregnancies, and never got extra breaks. the only time I ever had an issue while working and pumping was when my breaks were all scheduled very close together. I would then see a supervisor, and the would space them out evenly. It does say something in that article about her having to wait 5 hours to pump(meaning 5 hours between breaks?), now I see that as a problem. Don't most states have labor laws that require companies to offer a 1/2 hour break, and 2 15 minute breaks for every 8 hour shift? If so, then you would think she would have a break approximately every 2 hours, right?

[ramama]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

Did you actually read everything?? She wasn't fired for pumping.

She was fired for taking extra unatherized brakes to pump. The headline is missleading. The courts agreed with the fireing, not because of her pumping, but because she failed to follow the contract that she had with the company bu taking unathorised brakes.

don't flame me but,

she was taking extra brakes that are not atherized then she deserves to be fired. Anyone else would have as well if they were taking 15+ minute brakes that were not authorised. She should have gone to the boss and made proper arrangments for pumping. Which she didn't she didn't ask, she didn't talk to anyone. She took it upon herself and left her work to do it.

Sorry but there are rules that should be followed. No matter who you were.

BTW the company did make arrangments for her to be able to pump. She agreed to them, and then decided they were not good enough and didn't try to make new arrangements, just did it herself.

I agree. This could have been avoided if the woman had been more pro-active and diplomatic. "Pee breaks" normally last 3 minutes, pumping breaks are long enough to require giving the boss a heads-up so accommodations can be made.

Originally Posted by 2xy

I worked full time while nursing babies, and didn't need excessive breaks to pump milk. Why were her scheduled breaks not good enough?

I don't see this as breastfeeding discrimination. If someone had IBS or something and spent an inordinate amount of time in the restroom every single day, something would probably be done about that, too. I'm sure she knew how much her company would allow for her to be away from her desk.

My DH has IBS and he was fired from a job for taking frequent and long-ish bathroom breaks.

[indie]

Originally Posted by MeganS

Don't most states have labor laws that require companies to offer a 1/2 hour break, and 2 15 minute breaks for every 8 hour shift? If so, then you would think she would have a break approximately every 2 hours, right?

I worked at one place where the owner purposely scheduled everyone for 7.5 hours so he wouldn't be required by law to give us those three breaks. He was required to give us 10 minutes and then acted like he was a saint for giving us 15 minutes to scarf down our lunches before returning to work.

I read in another article (which I didn't bookmark, sorry) that she had requested to move her break to an earlier time because she was becoming painfully engorged but the company was unresponsive. She wasn't requesting an extra break she was just requesting a break at an earlier time. By not pumping when she was engorged she would have been risking Mastitis not to mention suffering pain. I don't see how that is acceptable.

And the assumption that her boss would be accommodating because others are doesn't make sense. Many, many women find themselves unable to breastfeed because so many workplaces refuse to accommodate them.

[KimberlyD0]

Originally Posted by indie

I worked at one place where the owner purposely scheduled everyone for 7.5 hours so he wouldn't be required by law to give us those three breaks. He was required to give us 10 minutes and then acted like he was a saint for giving us 15 minutes to scarf down our lunches before returning to work.

I read in another article (which I didn't bookmark, sorry) that she had requested to move her break to an earlier time because she was becoming painfully engorged but the company was unresponsive. She wasn't requesting an extra break she was just requesting a break at an earlier time. By not pumping when she was engorged she would have been risking Mastitis not to mention suffering pain. I don't see how that is acceptable.

And the assumption that her boss would be accommodating because others are doesn't make sense. Many, many women find themselves unable to breastfeed because so many workplaces refuse to accommodate them.

She made the request after she had been caught taking the unauthorised brakes. She should have done it before hand.

I work in a call center, we are not able to move our brakes because the phones have to be manned so calls are not missed. If I was to be pumping at work I would have to follow the brake schedual they have set up. My Boss has been as accomidating as he could be, but I also have to be respectful. He even gave me almost 2 months of part time hours because I work an evening shift and my DD was having trouble taking a bottle for bedtime. Soon as we fixed that I was back to work full time.

Some places simply can't change brakes because of the nature of the job.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

Some places simply can't change brakes because of the nature of the job.

And some people don't get breaks, no matter what the law says.

I'm currently waitressing. I've worked 12 hour double-shifts with no break. There are many days that I work 7 or 8 hours and don't even pee once while I'm there....but I perspire so much that there's nothing really left to pee out, anyway.

That's the nature of the job. I work with a girl who has an almost-2yo, and she nursed the kid for 13 months. Unfortunately, she did have mastitis twice. If she had asked for a break to pump milk, I'm sure she would have been told that she'd have to find time on her own to do it....and in a high-volume restaurant, that's just not going to happen.

When I worked in a medical office, we got a lunch break and that's it. That's been every medical office I've worked in, which are numerous because we've moved a lot. When there are scheduled patients, you can't just say..."Sorry, I'm going on break now." I did find time to sneak away and pump at the office I worked at while nursing DS2....they'd have looked like real jerks if I couldn't be accomodated, considering it was an OB/GYN office.

[khaoskat]

Unless things have changed..

An employer is required to give a 15 minute paid break for every 4 hours of work.

Any employer is required to give a 30 minute unpaid break for every 6 hours of work. (So, you would get 30 mins unpaid lunch and 15 min paid break).

If you worked 8 hours, you would get 2 15 minute paid breaks and 1 30 minute unpaid break.

If you worked 12 hours, you would get 3 15 minute paid breaks and 2 30 minute unpaid breaks.

If they don't give these to employees the employee can file a complaint with Wage and Labor and the employer would face some serious problems.

[KimberlyD0]

Originally Posted by khaoskat

Unless things have changed..

An employer is required to give a 15 minute paid break for every 4 hours of work.

Any employer is required to give a 30 minute unpaid break for every 6 hours of work. (So, you would get 30 mins unpaid lunch and 15 min paid break).

If you worked 8 hours, you would get 2 15 minute paid breaks and 1 30 minute unpaid break.

If you worked 12 hours, you would get 3 15 minute paid breaks and 2 30 minute unpaid breaks.

If they don't give these to employees the employee can file a complaint with Wage and Labor and the employer would face some serious problems.

This may be different dependent on Country/state/provence

We get 2 paid 15 min brakes and one 1/2 unpaid lunch where I am and I work a 9 hour shift. Anything under 5 hours we get one 15 minute paid brake, and over 5 but under 7 is one unpaid lunch.

I believe this mother was working a 7 hours shift and was given a 10 min paid brake in the morning and then a 1/2 lunch 5 hours into the shift.

We get our lunch 5 hours in as well and because of the nature of my work I can't shift that lunch at all. brakes are a little more flexable, if I get stuck on a call for example I take my brake right after, however we are not allowed to take them early.

Everytime we go to the washroom or anything we have to punch it in so we stop getting calls and they can track how often and how long your gone. People have been fired for having to many or too long of these washrooms brakes.

[Just Kate]

Originally Posted by khaoskat

Unless things have changed..

An employer is required to give a 15 minute paid break for every 4 hours of work.

Any employer is required to give a 30 minute unpaid break for every 6 hours of work. (So, you would get 30 mins unpaid lunch and 15 min paid break).

If you worked 8 hours, you would get 2 15 minute paid breaks and 1 30 minute unpaid break.

If you worked 12 hours, you would get 3 15 minute paid breaks and 2 30 minute unpaid breaks.

If they don't give these to employees the employee can file a complaint with Wage and Labor and the employer would face some serious problems.

This is not applicable in Ohio. Ohio employers are not obligated to give ANY meal or 15 minute breaks to any worker over the age of 18, no matter the number of hours worked.

I have had multiple jobs that did not allow for either. At the jobs that did have breaks, the employer could take them away at their discretion so long as we were paid for our time.

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/12...nd-break-laws/

[MaryJaneLouise]

So, pregnancy discrimination is illegal, but BF discrimination is not? :