I’ve worked in at least two places where a colleague announces her pregnancy only to have a cold silence fall over management. They’d never be brazen enough to admit it, but some managers find pregnancy an annoyance and resent the employee for “disrupting” the workflow by getting pregnant. The U.S. already has one of the shortest maternity leave policies in the western world. Add to it the disdain of management, and pregnant women in the workforce may start to feel a little less than appreciated.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and made discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions illegal. Title VII, covers employers with 15 or more employees and includes state and local governments. Here’

Title VII’s pregnancy-related protections include:

• Hiring

  An employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers.

• Pregnancy & Maternity Leave

  An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee’s ability to work.

  If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job because of her pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee.

• Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs. If an employee has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy-related condition and recovers, her employer may not require her to remain on leave until the baby’s birth.
• Health Insurance

  Any health insurance provided by an employer must cover expenses for pregnancy-related conditions on the same basis as costs for other medical conditions. An employer need not provide health insurance for expenses arising from abortion, except where the life of the mother is endangered.

  Pregnancy-related expenses should be reimbursed exactly as those incurred for other medical conditions, whether payment is on a fixed basis or a percentage of reasonable-and-customary-charge basis.

  The amounts payable by the insurance provider can be limited only to the same extent as amounts payable for other conditions. No additional, increased, or larger deductible can be imposed.

  Employers must provide the same level of health benefits for spouses of male employees as they do for spouses of female employees.

• Fringe Benefits

  Pregnancy-related benefits cannot be limited to married employees. In an all-female workforce or job classification, benefits must be provided for pregnancy-related conditions if benefits are provided for other medical conditions.

  If an employer provides any benefits to workers on leave, the employer must provide the same benefits for those on leave for pregnancy-related conditions.

  Employees on leave because of pregnancy-related conditions must be treated the same as other temporarily disabled employees for accrual and crediting of seniority, vacation calculation, pay increases, and temporary disability benefits.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on pregnancy or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

The bottom line – Women who are pregnant or affected by pregnancy-related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.  For more information on EEOC polices, visit the EEOC’s website.

on Facebook anyway… sort of. Remember the employee who got fired for dissing her supervisor on Facebook? Well the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sued American Medical Response of Connecticut, claiming that the company’s blogging and internet policy barring workers from disparaging the company or its supervisors was unconstitutional.

Well American Medical settled with the labor board and has agreed to change its blogging and internet policy. The company also agreed to revise another policy that prohibited employees from depicting the company over the Internet without permission.

Jonathan Kreisber, NLRB’s regional director says “The fact that they agreed to revise their rules so that they’re not so overly restrictive of the rights of employees to discuss their terms and conditions with others and with their fellow employees is the most significant thing that comes out of this.”

Back in 2009 the employee who spawned this debate posted comments on Facebook from her home computer after her supervisor said a customer had complained about her work. The comment, which apparently included a few of our most loved four letter words, was well received by colleagues. The employee in question was later fired. American Medical claimed they fired the employee because of poor performance, but the settlement seems to suggest otherwise.

What are your thoughts on Facebook posts about employees and bosses? Protected speech or “enter at your own risk?” Share your thoughts in the comment section.

That would be Chris Lee. NY Congressman Chris Lee.  Chris “striking the Eddie Long pose” Lee. Here’s a side by side if you think I’ve gone too far…

What is it about grown a** men who should be busy doing congressy things and running mega-churches, deciding instead to take cell phone pictures in bathrooms and sending them to people who are not their wives? Side question – Isn’t there something in the bible about pastors NEVER wearing muscle shirts. Ever. In fact, I think “though shalt never wear muscle shirts. Ever.” might have been one of the original commandments.

So, because of the picture on the left, and because he used his real name and real email address, Congressman Chris Lee is now former Congressman Chris Lee.  The woman he tried to impress on Craigslist checked him out on Facebook and learned that he was not, as he’d stated in his Craigslist profile, a 39-year-old divorced, lobbyist, but instead a 46-year-old married father.

To quote the woman who was on the receiving end of Lee’s lovely picture, “People cheat every day, but only dumb people get caught.”

Read more about Chris Lee and his failed foray into Craigslist here.

In what’s being reported as the first case in Mexico in which a judge is accused of sexual harassment Mexico City Judge Alfredo Reyes Flores has allegedly been spending an awful lot of his time on the job viewing pornography, including child pornography, consuming alcohol and sexually harassing female subordinates. He also apparently demanded bottles of wine from employees in exchange for authorizing time off and overtime.

Reyes Flores’ illicit activities were discovered during a “surprise inspection”.  This is the first case in Mexico in which a judge stands accused of sexual harassment and abuse of authority against his subordinates, according to sources at that court.

Read more at Sify news.