[Law Suit] Expectant Mother v. Employer

[Joe Wordsworth]

What nonsense. I think many women would gladly share the ability to be pregnant with men. I wonder if that would change the employer viewpoint?

Most likely, I would think.

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

I think personally that Joe's attitude is obnoxious. What is the difference between her and a guy that comes down with a sudden chronic illness? Work wise they are in the same boat.

I think that Joe's attitude would change rather suddenly if it was HIS wife that was suddenly in danger of losing her job due to a sudden health problem that lasted for a while.

I have found that people tend to be a lot more more understanding when things happen that affect them directly.

 

[cloudy]

She knew beforehand about her work situation, certainly.

But you posted that this was her second child.

I worked straight through with both of my pregnancies, perhaps her first pregnancy had no complications and she expected the second to be the same.

When it took a medical turn for the worse, and her employers would not attempt to work with her, despite doctor certification, it seems she applied everything she could in an attempt to keep her job.

If we as humans want to continue the species, women have to be pregnant. And unfortunately, that does seem to cause some disruption at places of employment. I'm sure many ladies here have seen the sneers on a boss or coworker's face because you had to run out of a meeting to throw up from morning sickness, or leave for the third time to pee because of the late trimester child pressing on your bladder. Not to mention child care issues after the fact.

We are punished for being pregnant.

And that, quite frankly, is ridiculous. You have to deal with everything else that being pregnant entails, physical, emotional, financial, and it's quite a bit, by the way, and then you have to be concerned that you are in some way inconveniencing your boss and coworkers because you dare to have a child.

What nonsense. I think many women would gladly share the ability to be pregnant with men. I wonder if that would change the employer viewpoint?

Amen to this.

...and Joe? Most handbooks don't cover salaried employees, or most that I've seen, and I have a rather lengthy career. They rarely tell salaried employees that you'll be required to work 60+ hours. You usually find out that little tidbit after you start.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There are two issues here.

ONE:Many employers are bonafide assholes who exploit their workers. The law helps them do it.

TWO: Many employees are bonafide assholes who exploit their bosses. The law helps them do it.

The solution to both problems is for employee benefits to be managed by an administrator separate & apart from the employer. When the employee is ill she collects compensation from the administrator. The employer has no control over the money. I worked for a company that did this. Every dime of 'paid leave' went into one account managed by an administrator outside the company. Sick time, vacation, personal days, etc. came out of the same pot of money. When you quit you got the balance of the account paid directly to you. If you depleted your account it sucked to be you.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

What nonsense. I think many women would gladly share the ability to be pregnant with men.

Nope. Never.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Women will break the glass ceiling when they wise up and become aware that their existential foundation is antithetical to what they preceive men to be.

Men, for the most part, cant care less how women see them. Men know which team they play for and like their team.

Women, for the most part, wanna play on both teams simultaneously.

 

[JagFarlane]

An interesting point is that she was working 60 hours a week, but as a salaried employee she was not entitled to lighter hours. Hold on a minute there...60 hour workweek and not entitled to say a 40 hour work week? Hell Home Depot considers 35hr work weeks as full time. But truly, when did society start to think that 60hrs is acceptable as a normal workweek?

As far as the pregnancy goes...she has every right to become pregnant, and yes most women work till just before they give birth, take some time off, and then return. And there are men whom take the time off for the birth and first couple of weeks of their childs life. There is nothing wrong with that. Yes...it can put a strain on things...but that is the way life is sometimes.

 

[champagne1982]

This article is too vague to make any value judgements on. She said/they said stories are written from the emotional, sadly this report is not very good journalism. We should have been bored to tears with a long, detailed lists of all the parameters so that by the time the end of the story's reached we'd all be too tired to care.

The writer gave all the details of the woman's attempts to keep her career and didn't give us any cause to believe that she really hadn't done all that could be done to save both her and her baby's life. Sadly, no information on what she expected to do after the baby was born concerning her career was given.

<sarcasm>I suppose the damned socialists were going to give her some kind of government funded maternity benefit. Now, she sees a solution after using up her employee leave and vacation times, and the company was thoughtful enough to provide her with it. How else were they to provide a settlement of 4 million bucks severance without giving her a cause for litigation?</sarcasm>

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not suprised when it happens. I'm suprised when people think that its the same thing as being rational... you know, because its not.

Who do you think you are, Mr Spock? Sorry, he was a TV character.

"Rational" is not as narrow a definition as you make it out to be, joe. Really rational people do not neglect their emotions when making decisions.

I would disagree. Freedoms of choice are a part of American values, at least I believe so and think that's well supported; a restriction on that seems very un-American.

We are talking about something a little different; unbridled capitalism is the catchword. "Freedom of choice" does not mean a corporation has the freedom to abuse its emplyees. Arden isn't a small business with one boss.

Sure, she could have. But, I think I've been accounting for that possibility the whole time.

Not so as anyone would notice it.

Its an analogy. As such, it doesn't have to be any more "actually real" than Plato's cave needs to actually exist somewhere or there has to be a ring that actually makes people invisible. Its explanatory power isn't in its actuality, but its correspondance to what is possible and what it shows of other propositional relationships. Are you getting hung up on the example in the analogy, really?

It's a lousy and inaccurate analogy. You are talking about a real woman, with a real pregnancy. Your analogy doesn't make sense, and is very insulting.

And I haven't a clue what you're talking about regarding cults.

I knew you would say that.

I don't mind personal preference going before production, people are people and I think I even praise that earlier in this thread... but why is it a business's concern what people do with their private lives? If I make a personally preferential choice to take a vacation or get cosmetic surgery or take a few months off to help raise my newborn--can they not make a personally preferential choice to simply hire someone with fewer personally preferential taxes on their time?

You do not "praise" anyone's personal choices. You phrased that "praise" in a manner and context that made it seem sarcastic and denigrating. I'm sure you are surprised to hear that I misread your offhand mention so drastically. That's your problem as I've mentioned before-- you do not use enough words to make your meaning clear. It's subtle. And it's important. And I do not think you actually are surprised.

I didn't say it was a matter of class. Just reason. There's nothing bizarre about it, really. None of this is any kind of revolutionary or alien thinking. Its really quite basic.

I am passing an emotional and moral judgement here. Your reasons are ugly and your solution is low class. Protest all you want. My judgement is based on my observation of what you say.

I don't think anyone here has decided that "all women are going to get pregnant and have severe complications that put them at risk...". Nor has anyone claimed it was her choice to be ill. I think you're either being willfully ignorant here (you can go back and read where neither I, nor anyone else I can see, have said those things) or purposefully fraudulent--the motivation there being a mystery to me. And if you're basing a decision on my ability to be rational on those two premises--then, your argument is just... well, invalid.

You are the guy who said that you wouldn't hire women based on the outcome of this lawsuit. Therefore, the logical correlary is that all women will become dangerously pregnant. And cost you (horrors!) money. So yes, someone here has said something so similar as to make little difference. Rationally speaking, the innuendo is quite clear.

I mean, you could have made a different conclusion; "If my female employee becomes dangerously ill, and I support her, I will keep a good employee and save myself a lawsuit." but you didn't go that way. You never have.

Again, "rational" is not the same as "dispassionate." "Logical" is not "sensible--" especially the way you use the term.


You have a really ugly habit, Joe, of belittling the intellects of many of the people who post here. It's your way or be stupid. And before you tell me that "nobody has said that," every thing you say is implicative of that. Stop trying for plausible deniability. It makes you a rather despicable little oinker.

 

[gauchecritic]

a rather despicable little oinker.

giggle, chortle, snicker, quaff quaff.

Not at you Joe, I've just never come across this epithet before.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't think Joe wants to eliminate all women from the workforce, I don't think Joe thinks that women getting pregnant is bad, I don't think Joe is only concerned about the money.

He's saying, if pushed, what he'd decide. He's a business man, calculates things without emotion in a debate and explores all the options. He doesn't know the woman, how well she works, if you could ismply get a temp in to do her work whilst she deals with the prergnancy and it's problems etc.

I also think Joe's never been pregnant *grins* (it's not all written down in a book, love, sometimes things happen that no one expects. )

My own opinion? I think she's justified to an extent. The amount of money seems extreme,but I don't know how much money she makes in her job. It does seem like they've tried to push her out from what I can read, but maybe there is more to this than meets the eye.

I think Joe said that he wouldn't want to hire women if this one won her lawsuit.

Joe wishes us to judge each sentence separately, like a "logician' would. Joe likes to stick to the letter of what he's said; he likes to deny the context, and point out "I didn't say that" where he knows very well people will read an assumption into his words.

On the other hand, he has no problem reading a value judgement into my statement "That's what I thought you'd say." Which after all, was strictly factual.

I find myself wishing ill of Joe-- the kind of illness that puts him in danger of losing quality of life, his job. I would like to know how his "logic" fares under those circumstances. If he begins to add human kindness into his "logic."

Joe, I think that a logician's forum might be a better venue for these mind exercises.

giggle, chortle, snicker, quaff quaff.

Not at you Joe, I've just never come across this epithet before.

That's the only one I remember, out of the ten that I deleted last night.

 

[jomar]

I do understand what Joe is saying from a cost-benefit viewpoint. But if you choose that path the logical endpoint would be screening everyone for problems having the potential for absenteeism due to medical issues, psychiatric/emotional issues and even pressing family issues. You'd then hire those in the acceptable range and cross your fingers.

But there is room for incredible benefits and hygenic factors that can increase loyalty and long-term productivity. One such example is SAS, a privately held software company in Cary, NC. High pay, on-site daycare and healthcare, massage, hair salon, concierge services, fitness centers, outstanding food services, flex-time and more. The owner spends a ton of money on these things because it in fact helps the bottom line. This also helps keep turnover low - it costs a lot of money to hire and train, as someone has already mentioned. Employees feel valued, trusted and they return the company with higher company loyalty, job satisfaction and productivity.

 

[English Lady]

Of course, if she wins I totally want the ability to just not hire women in the future. I, honestly, don't want to carry the cost risks associated if this is what could well happen.

I think Joe said that he wouldn't want to hire women if this one won her lawsuit.

Joe wishes us to judge each sentence separately, like a "logician' would. Joe likes to stick to the letter of what he's said; he likes to deny the context, and point out "I didn't say that" where he knows very well people will read an assumption into his words.

On the other hand, he has no problem reading a value judgement into my statement "That's what I thought you'd say." Which after all, was strictly factual.

I find myself wishing ill of Joe-- the kind of illness that puts him in danger of losing quality of life, his job. I would like to know how his "logic" fares under those circumstances. If he begins to add human kindness into his "logic."

Joe, I think that a logician's forum might be a better venue for these mind exercises.

I think Joe said he'd like to have the option just to not hire women..not that he didn't want to, not that he wouldn't but that he'd like that to be an option, because a risk of a 4 million dollar lawsuit seemed very high. And I can understand that, I don't think it would ever be as simple as that, though. If a woman is best qualified for the job and will make the most money, I think that'd offset this risk.

I'd never wish ill for anyone, I can't find it in me to do so.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't like the way Joe debates? Don't debate with Joe, simple as.

 

[logophile]

I think Joe said he'd like to have the option just to not hire women..not that he didn't want to, not that he wouldn't but that he'd like that to be an option, because a risk of a 4 million dollar lawsuit seemed very high. And I can understand that, I don't think it would ever be as simple as that, though. If a woman is best qualified for the job and will make the most money, I think that'd offset this risk.

I'd never wish ill for anyone, I can't find it in me to do so.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't like the way Joe debates? Don't debate with Joe, simple as.

So, I don't mean this to sound rude, but...
seriously, EL - are you Joe's alt? Is he yours? The way you claim to understand his "true meaning" is sometimes surprising. You are adding context and previous knowledge of Joe to explain his intent and motives. That's something that the kind of "logic" and "rationality" he espouses doesn't really allow.

I know he's your good friend, and you want to be good and kind and defend him. But he really doesn't need it. He's of above average intelligence, he's a skilled grammarian and he loves a good tear 'em volley of written points and counter points. He opens these threads because is the very kind of conversation he likes to have most. If he didn't want to word-wrestle over these issues, he'd find a BBS to post to where most people felt like he did.

Okay - back to reading along now.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think personally that Joe's attitude is obnoxious. What is the difference between her and a guy that comes down with a sudden chronic illness? Work wise they are in the same boat.

I think its a little different--they share a lot of the same properties, but not all. To put it in the "no difference" category (or closer to it) I think we'd have to say that the guy in question decides to start smoking ten packs a day and contracts a respiratory infection in short order that requires medical attention which then turns into cancer which takes up medical and vacation time to attend to (but they're certain they can cure in a few more months). The willful decision part is a big, big factor that makes "sudden chronic illness" not entirely accurate.

I think that Joe's attitude would change rather suddenly if it was HIS wife that was suddenly in danger of losing her job due to a sudden health problem that lasted for a while.

I have found that people tend to be a lot more more understanding when things happen that affect them directly.

I think it might at that. But, if I judged what's proper to do or improper to do based entirely on whether I'm immediately benefiting (or being harmed) from it or not, I don't think I'd be a very good person. I think it might be better to consider things independant of how it affects me--and maybe affects a bigger picture.

Who do you think you are, Mr Spock? Sorry, he was a TV character.

"Rational" is not as narrow a definition as you make it out to be, joe. Really rational people do not neglect their emotions when making decisions.

Rational is participating in reason, which is following basic logical relationships between propositions. Its not really too complicated. It does require some objectivity (there are several common fallacies that stem from arguing from anger or spite or love or delight). Rational people don't necessarily neglect their emotions when making decisions, but rational people would have to admit that making decisions that are not rational (based on emotion, contradiction, ignorance, or whatever else) makes them, in that decision, not rational people.

We are talking about something a little different; unbridled capitalism is the catchword. "Freedom of choice" does not mean a corporation has the freedom to abuse its emplyees. Arden isn't a small business with one boss.
Not so as anyone would notice it.

We may not be talking about the same thing then. I mean a company having the right to run its business and only its business--not their employees lives nor their personal habits; and vice-versa. And should a company not offer favorable terms to its employees? Then don't work for them. And should they be sufficiently unpleasant to work for based on those terms? Let the market decide. I'm not talking about abuse. I'm talking about choice. If you want to talk about abuse? Then, I agree, companies shouldn't abuse their employees. I don't think anyone should abuse anyone for that matter.

It's a lousy and inaccurate analogy. You are talking about a real woman, with a real pregnancy. Your analogy doesn't make sense, and is very insulting.
I knew you would say that.

Sure it does. It very much makes sense. Agent 1 is engaging in a personally controllable set of behaviors up until a point at which it becomes a series of less or uncontrollable events; Agent 2 is engaging in a personally controllable set of behaviors up until a point (in this case the not being around part), at which point it becomes a series of less or uncontrollable events. That we're talking about a "real woman" and a "real pregnancy" doesn't have any bearing on the analogy existing. For that matter, should we avoid analogy for things that have real analogs? The War in Iraq? No analogies about how its conducted there? Crime, poverty, etc. Are you having an issue with the analogy comparing itself to a real situation (I should hope not) or that its not explanatory enough (that it doesn't correspond sufficiently)?

If the former, then wow. I have no idea what to say to that, except "why?" If the latter, then if might need some refining to be more explanatory.

You do not "praise" anyone's personal choices. You phrased that "praise" in a manner and context that made it seem sarcastic and denigrating. I'm sure you are surprised to hear that I misread your offhand mention so drastically. That's your problem as I've mentioned before-- you do not use enough words to make your meaning clear. It's subtle. And it's important. And I do not think you actually are surprised.

I often "praise" people's personal choices. It wasn't meant to be sarcastic and you shouldn't take it that way. I'll say it again, and differently: If someone wants to live their life in a preferential way (integrated in the 60's, consciencious objection in the 40's, unwed single momma keeping the baby, a job you love over a job that pays better, etc.), despite practicality (the community does like it, society doesn't like it, it will be harder, it throws some chaos into stability, etc.), then more power to you--as a person. However, a business? As an entity, I feel as it should fall on the practical side of decisions over the preferential ones.

I am passing an emotional and moral judgement here. Your reasons are ugly and your solution is low class. Protest all you want. My judgement is based on my observation of what you say.

Well, if you're so certain then... what are the reasons I have that are so ugly?

You are the guy who said that you wouldn't hire women based on the outcome of this lawsuit. Therefore, the logical correlary is that all women will become dangerously pregnant. And cost you (horrors!) money. So yes, someone here has said something so similar as to make little difference. Rationally speaking, the innuendo is quite clear.

I'm the guy who said I'd like to reserve the ability to do so, were I running a business, and should she win based on the information provided and given. Reserving the right to shoot trespassers isn't the same as hating everyone who walks by. Reserving the right to back out of a real estate deal doesn't mean you don't trust people who sell property. It means only that, should there be a strong precedent that says that I have to pay for the employment of a woman who chooses to get pregnant, stays pregnant, and develops complications that demand extended periods of not-work over and above present laws in place to accomodate maternity... then I want to have the security of making an intelligent decision about how to spend my money, as a business and an employer of other people, on future employees. I want to be able to consider, like insurance, the risks involved and decide what level of risk I'm comfortable with. Because, maybe in my business, I can't afford to have to make the decision between having to lay off other people and falter the business and cashflow (other peoples' lives) and a $4 million dollar judgement for cutting someone loose.

(incidentally, that's not a logical corollary)

Its not charity, its a business. Other people (investors, banks, owners) rely on other people (managers, departmental officers, executives), to take care of the present and future of the enterprise. If I have a diner in Smalltown USA with four employees, and a young woman wants to fill the cashier slot and an older woman does as well... and I know I might have to pay, based on the former getting pregnant, upwards of three or four or six or eight or twelve months of paycheck for little work should something go awry... I might go with the lady less likely to have a kid. Or the guy. If I can be assured that the programs in place take care of that, I might be less worried about the financial risk involved.

I mean, you could have made a different conclusion; "If my female employee becomes dangerously ill, and I support her, I will keep a good employee and save myself a lawsuit." but you didn't go that way. You never have.

I could, I want to reserve the right to go the other way as well. More options is better.

Again, "rational" is not the same as "dispassionate." "Logical" is not "sensible--" especially the way you use the term.

Logical is "participates in logic", or "is sound", or "is valid" (though that's harder). Passion is not a function of logic. Passion is a function of persuasion, but that's not rationality.

You have a really ugly habit, Joe, of belittling the intellects of many of the people who post here. It's your way or be stupid. And before you tell me that "nobody has said that," every thing you say is implicative of that. Stop trying for plausible deniability. It makes you a rather despicable little oinker.

I can be honest, I can be clear, and I can use avoid using eleven words when four words will do. For pure "conveying information", there's not a whole lot more than can be done there.

I haven't said or meant that its "my way or be stupid". But, I have emphasized that "smart doesn't automatically make everything one says rational" and "one can be rational or preferential (and occasionally both), and that's all well and good, but we should mistake one for the other". If we're advocating making decisions independant of reason because that's better... we might as well sign up to the Bush Administration School of Life. But, if we're advocating a world that is objective and tolerant and fair, we might have to address things with the knee-jerk reactions and wishful thinking.

 

[English Lady]

So, I don't mean this to sound rude, but...
seriously, EL - are you Joe's alt? Is he yours? The way you claim to understand his "true meaning" is sometimes surprising. You are adding context and previous knowledge of Joe to explain his intent and motives. That's something that the kind of "logic" and "rationality" he espouses doesn't really allow.

I know he's your good friend, and you want to be good and kind and defend him. But he really doesn't need it. He's of above average intelligence, he's a skilled grammarian and he loves a good tear 'em volley of written points and counter points. He opens these threads because is the very kind of conversation he likes to have most. If he didn't want to word-wrestle over these issues, he'd find a BBS to post to where most people felt like he did.

Okay - back to reading along now.

Oh yeah, I'm his emotional side. *grins*

I'm just reading what's written *shrug* Maybe my friendship with him does give me a little more insight into the way his mind works.

And I know he doesn't need me, I'm very, very, very aware of the fact. I chime in when I think my insight might be useful, obviously you don't think this time my insight was helpful. You're welcome to that opinion.

I'm Joe's friend, if I can and I want to, I'll stand up for him. If you don't like that, you can lump it.

 

[Guest]

Here in Israel most of the workforce serves in the army. Most women don't do reserves, lots of men do.

The men who contribute the most fighters, medics, pilots - can easily miss 40 work days a year serving the country.

Is it a sound business decision not to hire them?

The same dedication they give their country, they give to their families, and their workplace.

It all boils down to that unquantifiable called individual productivity.


Maharat

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Here in Israel most of the workforce serves in the army. Most women don't do reserves, lots of men do.

The men who contribute the most fighters, medics, pilots - can easily miss 40 work days a year serving the country.

Is it a sound business decision not to hire them?

The same dedication they give their country, they give to their families, and their workplace.

It all boils down to that unquantifiable called individual productivity.


Maharat

That's an interesting question.

So, assuming I have the choice of hiring someone that's going to be gone 40 days a year... or not? All other things equal? Hire the person who is around more reliably.

Assuming I have the choice of hiring someone that's going to be gone 40 days a year due to highly honorable and dedicated and character indicating military service... or not? All other things being equal? I'd probably hire the 40-day-a-year soldier.

Assuming I have the choice of hiring someone who is, say, three months pregnant or someone who is not? All other things equal? The person that isn't going to have the baby.

Productivity is a big gray area, but its not "unquantifyable". We can quantify much of it. The US Military does it all the time, and they're pretty good at it.

Now, whether we should or shouldn't is entirely different. Or whether that quantity should be in an equation that's larger (possibly community, state, or nationwide) is another question. But we can measure.

 

[logophile]

highly honorable and dedicated and character indicating military service... or not?

And motherhood is?
Not honorable, dedicated and character indicating?

Be careful, here, Joe.
There are a lot of mothers here who would love to delineate the ways that motherhood has helped them grow into better citizens and workers.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I can be honest, I can be clear, and I can use avoid using eleven words when four words will do. For pure "conveying information", there's not a whole lot more than can be done there.

One of the points I've made time and again is that your four words do not convey "pure information", and one reason for that is that this forum does not expect to be forced to study a post in that light. You would do better to find a logician's forum.

If you insist on speaking Javanese in the heart of mid America,so to speak-- stop whining about the misunderstandings that arise. They are not the forum's fault.

Assuming I have the choice of hiring someone who is, say, three months pregnant or someone who is not? All other things equal? The person that isn't going to have the baby.

She wasn't three months pregnant when she was hired. Or was she?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And motherhood is?
Not honorable, dedicated and character indicating?

I would disagree with that.

Be careful, here, Joe.
There are a lot of mothers here who would love to delineate the ways that motherhood has helped them grow into better citizens and workers.

I think motherhood is good.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

One of the points I've made time and again is that your four words do not convey "pure information", and one reason for that is that this forum does not expect to be forced to study a post in that light. You would do better to find a logician's forum.

This forum has demonstrated an interest and activity in thinking about big things, in trying to be more right than the other guy, and in persuading; all this in addition to what an "Author's Hangout" might look like, by title alone. If we are to entertain "let'd be critical of X" threads or "what do you think about Y" posts, I don't think it unreasonable to have an example of another way to do it. No harm in that, really.

If you insist on speaking Javanese in the heart of mid America,so to speak-- stop whining about the misunderstandings that arise.

Between you and me, there's really only one of us whining about the conversation or how people understand things... and so far, it isn't me.

They are not the forum's fault.
She wasn't three months pregnant when she was hired. Or was she?

The lady from the article? Not at all. The lady from the example? Definitely.

 

[Liar]

I think motherhood is good.

Could you specify how?

I mean, if it's not honorable, dedicated or character indicating?

(or did I trip over a double negative there?)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Could you specify how?

I mean, if it's not honorable, dedicated or character indicating?

(or did I trip over a double negative there?)

Who said its not honorable, dedicated, or character indicating?

Or are we asking how it can be "good" and not those things?

 

[Stella_Omega]

This forum has demonstrated an interest and activity in thinking about big things, in trying to be more right than the other guy, and in persuading; all this in addition to what an "Author's Hangout" might look like, by title alone. If we are to entertain "let'd be critical of X" threads or "what do you think about Y" posts, I don't think it unreasonable to have an example of another way to do it. No harm in that, really.

Hm. I had no idea that you were 'offering an example", I thought you were complaining about how unfair it is that a corporation be expected to be charitable to an employee.

Between you and me, there's really only one of us whining about the conversation or how people understand things... and so far, it isn't me.

You aren't whining? How did I get that impression!

The lady from the article? Not at all. The lady from the example? Definitely.

And I would not have hired her, and I support the firing. I offered that anecdote, in fact, as a better example of a pregnancy-workplace conflict, in the terms you set up.

Your expectations of my rationality got in the way of your understanding.