Non-Sequiturs: 03.22.07
* And you think Angelina’s babies will have issues. [New York Daily News; New York Post]
* Why no one dress coded the cut-off denim shorts/Uggs combination at my Southern California high school in the early 90s is beyond me. [New York Times]
* This is not remotely law-minded, but I just know some member is going to sue Harvard for fostering a religiously hostile environment that inevitably leads to that great equalizer that is college sex. Even the co-founder admits he “slipped in up” once before. [BreitBart]
* It’s only okay to use a woman’s pregnancy against her when you’re dumping her ass for another woman. [ACS Blog]
(7) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
broken link on breitbart
Worked for me. Also, link #1 = WOW.
This last link makes zero sense. How can you appoint someone to an interim position who is not physically there?
5:25, miss the point much?
I am equally confused. I must not understand the law on pregnancy discrimination, I guess, cause I agree with 5:25 that not appointing a woman who is on leave to an interim position raises no problems. What am I missing? If she'd been passed over upon returning from maternity leave it would be different.
Don't be confused; it's not discrimination. Obviously the fact that she is not available to work is a valid reason not to appoint her.
6:28, she IS being permanently passed over. Gonzalez announced he's appointing the interim guy. It's not an interim issue.
6:32, it's not a valid reason under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.