Elie, you make it so easy. As anyone who was even half-conscious in Constitutional Law can tell you, discriminating on the basis of pregnancy (which is what this is) is not the same as discriminating on the basis of gender. Pregnancy discrimination is also forbidden in many cases, but saying it's the same as gender discrimination is like saying getting kicked in the junk is the natural result of being male.

Got milk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7birRgPkAnQ

I don't know much about much, but I do think I agree with the Plaintiff here.

Exactly. I always lactate at work and I have never had children. Heck, I am not even female.

Well played 3

Quick all biglaw females!! Go get preggers and save your jobs!

2, you're right, but that's probably more a definitional problem than a substantive one. For instance, if a woman-run company had a policy of kicking everyone between the legs and firing anyone who doubled over (let's say it was somehow relevant to their work, which included, I don't know, hopping over fences), that's technically not GENDER discrimination, because technically not all men have external testicles that are hypersensitive to stimuli. But, I mean, come on.

The question is whether another woman, who was not lactating, would have been denied a change in her break schedule. If the answer is yes, they would also have been denied, then it was not discrimination. Do I agree? Yes I agree it wasn't discrimination - but I don't have to like the decision to agree with it.

What if she was given the change to change her schedule whereas women who were not lactating were not given that chance? Would they then be facing lawsuits from everyone else for the same discrimination?

10 is right on the money. This is discrimination on the basis of choosing continued breastfeeding, not on the basis of being a woman. Just because a man doesn't happen to be able to exercise that choice doesn't mean that the gender discrimination ManBearPig is lurking.

This serves as one of the countless examples of why my firm constantly regrets hiring females. Duct tape can be only so effective.

Incidentally, it's good to be male. And to have an obscene amount of family wealth..

Dear 2,

Before you make fun of Elie, take a good look at the drivel you're writing yourself.

This wasn't a Con Law equal protection case; it was an employment discrimination case. The lack of state action should have been your first clue.

Geduldig was the EQUAL PROTECTION case in which the Court held pregnancy discrimination isn't gender discrimination. It has nothing to do with state employment discrimination law.

In fact, I'll help you out and cite a provision of the Ohio statute that this court was actually looking at.

"(B) For the purposes of divisions (A) to (F) of section 4112.02 of the Revised Code, the terms “because of sex” and “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy"

Notice something there? Maybe that for the purposes of this statute pregnancy discrimination IS gender discrimination? So that maybe this court DID have to distinguish denying milk breaks from general pregnancy discrimination to deny the plaintiff relief?

Good luck passing the bar exam with that kind of genius legal acumen, and on the off chance that you did already pass it and have some job, I hope your employer is keeping you as far away from any meaningful role in litigation as humanly possible.

Got moron?

Elie, does Lat allow you to expose your moobs in the office?

Pick something distinctly male--say, needing to ejaculate into a cup every two hours in order to artificially inseminate your wife. That's pretty much like the voluntary choice to continue breastfeeding, give or take.

And if a guy took bathroom breaks that interfered with his work schedule in order to perform that medical task (all puerile jokes aside), he could surely be fired without having an action for gender discrimination.

Glad to see Elie is continuing his proud tradition of not bothering to read a case or the rationale, but simply rambling about how he thinks the decision is inconsistent with his policy preferences.

Through constant nipple stimulation, men are capable of lactating and breastfeeding. I'm sure that if a man wanted to take frequent breaks to pump, that he would be fired as well. As such, there is no gender discrimination.

The company may not have violated OH law, but it likely violated Title VII by discriminating on account of a pregnancy-related condition.

Very funny 13. 2 is a moron. But you are as well.

16, for real. Wasn't Lat supposed to have muzzled Mystal's kneejerk (and legally embarrassing) opinion pieces?

I take frequent breaks from work to pump....and I am male.

Conservatives love to twist themselves into knots to explain how something is NOT discrimination, despite as a practical matter, the result of the action is obviously discrimination. Unless it involves white fire fighters. Then it is ALWAYS discrimination.

How do you look at yourselves in the mirror every morning?

12 made me laugh out loud in the middle of a meeting. Irony is good.

Conservatives love to twist themselves into knots to explain how something is NOT discrimination, despite as a practical matter, the result of the action is obviously discrimination. Unless it involves white fire fighters. Then it is ALWAYS discrimination.

How do you look at yourselves in the mirror every morning?

18, it's not a pregnancy-related condition, it's a conscious choice to continue lactation forevs.

Off topic: I take this medication that makes me frequently have to urinate. During the last deposition that I took, I embarrassingly had to take 14 bathroom breaks, with each humiliating request for one recorded for posterity.

Right, she could have fed her child tainted infant formula from China. That would have eliminated the need to BF.

Was this a Title VII suit? Sorry, I didn't read the article. Title VII protects persons from employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions as a necessary and indisputably logical corollary to gender-based employment discrimination.

I think some people are mistating the facts of the case, including Elie.

From what I understand, the case also hinged on the fact that the women NEVER EVEN ASKED FOR AN ACCOMODATION. If I remember properly, the lower court said that she unilaterally decided to take breaks. If she needed breaks to pump breast milk, she should have requested an accomodation. If that accomodation was denied, then she might have a case.

I think some people are mistating the facts of the case, including Elie.

From what I understand, the case also hinged on the fact that the women NEVER EVEN ASKED FOR AN ACCOMODATION. If I remember properly, the lower court said that she unilaterally decided to take breaks. If she needed breaks to pump breast milk, she should have requested an accomodation. If that accomodation was denied, then she might have a case.

At Columbia, we learned to argue our points based on the language of the statute or the caselaw interpreting the statute. Perhaps you did not learn this at law school. Rail all you want about the fact that the law doesn't support the result that you want it to, but don't blame the judge charged with interpreting that law.

Also, your point about the plaintiff being discriminated against because she's a mammal is also inapposite. One might take judicial notice of the fact that (unless there are newts on the payroll) all of the employees are mammals, and the plaintiff couldn't be discriminated against on that basis.

~Colum. L. Rev. 3L

24, because we don't think that private "discrimination" should be illegal.

13, 2 here. I actually specifically mentioned in my comment that pregnancy discrimination was barred by other statutes. I made no comment on the outcome of the case itself. I was criticizing only Elie's decision to equate pregnancy discrimination with gender discrimination. Alright, so in this case, because the Ohio legislature decided to take a statutory shortcut instead of drafting a separate pregnancy discrimination statute, they are treated the same in Ohio law.

But: (1) They are not actually the same, as I pointed out in my original comment...you can think pregnancy discrimination is bad, you can even think it's rooted in gender discrimination, but it's a simple fact that it's not the same as gender discrimination. (2) Do you really think Elie was referring to the Ohio definition of gender discrimination, or (far more likely) that he actually believes pregnancy discrimination and gender discrimination are the same?

The only people that like this result are fags. As a straight man, I enjoyed sending my wife to work. Now that they got away with firing her, what am I gonna do? She's here ALL THE TIME!

Also someone that brags about being on the law review and a 3L is the biggest fag of all.

Elie,

One person cannot "roundly criticize" anyone, unless you are using "roundly" in some sense other than is usual.

If this is a sly reference to your ample girth, I'm impressed.

"Also, your point about the plaintiff being discriminated against because she's a mammal is also inapposite. "

At Harvard, we didn't admit people who wrote sentences in the form "Also, . . . is also . . . ." (Those people had to settle for Columbia, apprently.)

32, that's great. So the conservative position is:

1. We think private entities/employers should be free to discriminate.

2. We think more or less all employment should be in the private sector (and that services such as firefighting should be privatized).

I think the real problem is the rediculous hipocracy of Totes...http://www.totes-isotoner.com/category/rain+products/comfort+for+a+cure+.do

There's gotta be more to the story than just "preganancy choice, not required."

Hell, any doctor would vouche it's necessary for the child's well being, etc. Isn't the rule for increased chiild immunity to disease a recommended breast feeding for a minimum of 6 months or something similar.

There's gotta be missing information here. Needless to say, the company and the court system should be ashamed of themselves.

38, the real problem is your spelling. It's "ridiculous" and "hypocrisy."

36,
At my TTT we knew how to spell "apparently".

-not 31

25: it's as related to pregnancy as childbirth. Under your logic, employers should be permitted to fire employees for not voluntarily terminating their pregnancies. Or am I confused, and it is simply the duration of her lactation that you have a problem with?

31, "one might take judicial notice"? What are you possibly talking about?

Thanks for letting the world know CLS law review staff are still dumber than some random hack from the HLS peleton. No offense, Elie. Just making a point.

Good decision by the Court. This ain't gender discrimination. Move to one of the many states where they legally protect lactaction breaks.

22 makes a good point. If I'm a male who takes frequent breaks to donate sperm to the toilet throughout the day, could I cry gender discrimination when terminated? Nope.

Exactly right, 37. Shrink the government, increase the power of private corporations, and make everything that private corporations do legal. I guess I don't understand why conservatives fear governments but don't fear huge multi-national corporations that ultimately have more power than most governments.

-- 24

31, pwned

45, the reason you don't understand is because you are a socialist. Hope this helps.

39 - there is no health benefit from between breastfeeding over formula if you have access to clean water and use formula from a reputable source. The La Leche league has been peddling that propaganda for too damn long. See Hanna Rosin in the Atlantic on this topic.

You'll notice that the "scathing" dissent cited only a clear public policy reason. Of course, clear public policy is the proper province of the legislature...or activist judges.

Right, 48. So you are telling me there is a qualitative difference between 5 multi-national corporations running the world and 5 national governments running the world? Personally, I'd prefer the latter -- at least you could get actual accountability. With the former, you end up with total centralized power with no transparency and no accountability (other than monetary). Conservatives seem hell bent on ensuring the former comes to fruition.

50, seriously. If you can't see how textbook socialist your response there is, then there's really no helping you.

-48

24, 45, I think it is the word "discrimination" that is more often twisted and expanded to fit whatever grievance an employee might have against his or her employer. Some states, such as California, specifically protect lactation breaks. Why? Because the legislature recognized that even California's liberal antidiscrimination laws would not protect new mothers in this situation. She was fired for taking excessive breaks, not for being a woman. Not discrimination.

Right on, 49! I hate me some activist judges!

Bill Brasky breastfeeds John Madden.

Never mind public policy, how about public relations? Is anyone at the wheel there at Totes/Isotoner? Anyone, anyone... Bueller?

What's everyone's problem with socialism?

50, do you really not consider physical coercion qualitatively worse than financial coercion? Governments have guns, jails, and hangmen. Corporations have money, jobs, and competitors who can coexist on the same land. No one wants a world run by five (evil) corporations, but it's incomparable to a world run by five (evil) governments (unless you think that the corporations turn into governments, which is not a realistic threat at this time).

25, giving birth is not a pregnancy-related condition, it's a conscious choice to continue the pregnancy.
(And lactating is not a pregnancy-related condition because 25 is lactating right now, and he isn't even pregnant).

47,

That's a lie. Breast milk contains the actual antibodies the mother has acquired.

Besides, all mammals breastfeed. Formula is no replacement. That is like saying a vitamin will replace vegetables in your diet.

You are retarded. Go take a class or something to fix that.

2 / 33,

Make no mistake. I don't believe Elie is usually thinking about anything really, except food.

I'm sure if Elie even took Con Law -- it's not required at HLS -- he was probably busy signing up for multiple Cake of the Month clubs online instead of paying attention in class on the day the professor covered gender-based equal protection.

In fact, that's assuming he was even in class. For all I know, on that day he probably decided to run into Cambridge Common or Three Aces Pizza naked, scare away the staff, and use the diversion to ravage the kitchen of all its provisions.

Still, regardless of what Elie might have been (not) thinking, I maintain that if you're going to criticize someone, you'd better make sure your own house is in order first.

It makes no sense to me to talk about distinguishing pregnancy from gender discrimination in the abstract. I need context. If we're talking about the Fourteenth Amendment, sure, because SCOTUS said so. If we're talking about a statutory claim though, you need to read the statute. A legislature can go ahead and say thong discrimination is gender discrimination if it wants to.

I apologize if my earlier post came across as harsh, but I acted out of a committed vision to improving the quality of Mystal criticism in these blog comments. Some may call me a dreamer, but one day, I see a world in which Elie-bashing comments win Pulitzer prizes and make small children weep with joy.

- 13

Mis tetas have always been an asset. I flashed one at Scalia during oral argument this afternoon just to throw off his questioning. You should have seen the size of his ojos!

Estoy tan astuto!

57, I think 50's point is, rather, to wonder what the difference is between a corporation and a government when a corporation can become powerful enough that it essentially has the power to make the rules. If you have a very small, very weak government with ineffective regulatory policies, a corporation can do pretty much anything it damn well pleases -- just as an all-powerful evil government can. In a conservative world, btw, your guns-and-jail hypothesis is inapposite, as the corporation would be free to hire armed guards to enforce its whims on its employees and customers (and, hell, people who have nothing to do with the corporation whatsoever).

I'm a small-everything conservative. That means I recognize that power corrupts, whether it's government power or corporate power. There's no qualitative difference. Although you're right that oppressive governments should strike terror into all our hearts, what I find mind-numbingly unbearable about modern-day neocons is that you seem not to see that the problem is power itself, not the formal classification of those who hold it. I don't care if you call the most powerful person on the planet a king/queen, president, or CEO -- the bottom line is that person is dangerous. Maybe that person will turn out not to be an evil person. But who wants to take that risk?

Come on, think about it. Let's say Disney decides to buy an island (something it's actually done, btw -- there is a private Disney-owned island in the Caribbean, called Castaway Cay). Let's say the Disney cast members who work there decide they are tired of sailing in and out all the time and they'd just like to live on the same bloc of land they work on. So Disney sets up some corporate housing on the island. Let's say, simultaneously, we go with your neocon small-government plan and totally rewrite our laws so Disney can discriminate all the hell it wants on any basis whatsoever. It gets to do what it wants, and anyone who doesn't like it can go screw him or herself. So Jimbob, our friendly cast member, who happens to be a gay Jewish Pacific Islander with one leg (the tourists' kids love his wooden-legged pirate shtick), comes to realize that Disney is shafting him and has been cutting his pay for no reason at all. His manager admits to him it's because he's a gay nonwhite cripple and a Jew, and then for good measure kicks sand in his face and asks what he's gonna do about it. Jimbob calls his attorney, who says she's very sorry, but the law has changed and Disney is perfectly within its rights. Jimbob loves his life on the private Disney island, but the situation is understandably intolerable to him, so he decides to go work for someone else. He turns in his letter of resignation to his manager and announces he's going back stateside to find a new job. But Disney refuses to provide him with transportation back to Florida, and he's spent all of his meager earnings (Disney pay is shit even for the people they *aren't* discriminating against - and, of course, there is now no more minimum wage) on basic living expenses, which are borderline extortionist given that Disney, who owns the entire fucking island, charges ten dollars for a fucking churro.

So Jimbob, who can't swim, is stuck on this fucking privately-owned island and our now-impotent, ineffectual government wouldn't help him get home to the US even if it weren't debt-ridden and strapped for cash given that income tax has been abolished. In other words, Jimbob is now a slave of the Walt Disney Company, and this situation is perfectly legal in your brave new neocon world. I ask you, for someone like Jimbob, what is the difference between a government and a corporation when a corporation is big enough and rich enough to OWN THE FUCKING LAND MASS HE LIVES ON?

Big government isn't the problem. Big ANYTHING is the problem. Neocons need to grow the fuck out of their knee-jerk pro-corporation cocaine-fueled hallucination and get a grip on reality.

@59 really? I'm a mammal, and I don't breastfeed. My chest is too hairy.

Oh, btw, this scenario was even constructed ASSUMING U.S. jurisdiction extends to the island, which it isn't at all clear that it would in a neocon world. If there is NO law there, by virtue of the fact that it's owned by Disney and not the US government, then Disney in fact IS a government, to the extent the island could be said to have one at all.

Still think there's a meaningful difference between big government and big corporations?

-62.

why are lactation rooms a "perk"? it's the law in most states for employers to have such a facility. tons of firms have them.

62, 64 - Ron Paul, is that you?

Humor aside, your premise is correct. Big gov't and big corp = bad. However, these faux economic conservatives, who take such a position only out of a desire to keep more of their paychecks (not any principled postion, God forbid), are sure to think the great invisible hand will prevent your awful scenario from ever taking place. Idiots.

62 is so obviously a socialist. "Small everything conservative" is just a code word for socialist. And yes, 66, the invisible hand would prevent this absurd scenario. I can't believe how stupid you socialists are.

If you don't drink a lot of beer before you go to work, you don't have to take a lot of bathroom breaks. Just passing (so to speak) this helpful hint along. Put it to good use.

I think monopolies are bad because they are non-Pareto optimal. Can someone please tell me if this makes me a socialist?

69: yes, it does make you a socialist.

68: if you don't drink a lot of beer before you go to work, you are a socialist.

Hope this helps.

Late to the game but - really? Continuing to breastfeed five months after giving birth is considered excessive? It's not as if it is a well substantiated medical fact that the longer you breastfeed the greater health benefits you afford your child ...

The entire media still sucks the teat of Barack Obama.

71 = socialist

If this woman actually valued breastfeeding she would have contracted to provide her services to an employer that provided lactation breaks.

Its not gender discrimination because men aren't allowed to take bathroom breaks to breast pump either. Yeah its idiotic. But, like others said, this fits perfectly with those USC cases that say that discriminating against pregnancy isn't gender discrimination. Because men aren't covered either. (Congress stepped in to cover women in these cases. And its the reason workplaces can't do it today.) Its logically stupid but on perfectly solid ground legally.

I think anyone who doesn't think this is ridiculous has never faced the pain and embarrassment of having full breasts that need to be milked.

62, the problems with your scenario are all based in your paternalism. I'm not Jimbob's daddy, and if he makes the dumb choice to live in a company town/on a company island, that's on him. What's more, if he moves to sub-Saharan Africa/the Independent Disney Republic and subsequently finds that it's not to his liking, that's on him. He chose where to move, what job to take, and how to spend his money, and if his choices screwed him over then all I can do is feel sorry for him (and perhaps try to help him personally if his fate really moves me).

I'm not saying that all things corporate are good, just that the evil they can do to us (especially without our consent, but usually even with it) pales in comparison with what governments can do. Autocracy is really bad, and in a sense that's much more salient than sand in the face. So long as the government can prevent/cause actual coercion and violence (i.e., killings/imprisonments/enslavements by corporations), the threat posed by corporations is not at all comparable to that posed by governments, even if both are bad.

Gee, isn't it great that Ohio laws provide no legal protection to breastfeeding moms?

That way, employers can *discriminate*, but not in a way that will result in any damages being paid.

What's even greater is that men don't lactate, so no male jobs will ever be jeopardized by this icky "nursing" thing - and makes it more like back when it was just us guys here at the office.

Word of advice to my Republican friends. Yelling "socialist!" did not work out last November and its not going to work now. Especially when lots of people are at the mercy of socialist institutions invented by the raving pinko FDR and his ilk right now. Things have changed. Even ordinary non top ten people unlike yourselves recognize that a free society is a blend of socialist and capitalist principles---that markets are the best way to allocate capital, but fail reliably; that corporations create great wealth, but tend to socialize costs and privatize benefits; that government should provide public goods, but is prone to gross inefficiencies. These matters are settled. Now move on to talking about the limits and legitimate aims of public policy, instead of trying to spool up some breathless Cold War era battle of civilizations over school vouchers and the like. Good talk.

77, we've hit the limit.

Next stop, revolution.

75, I don't think you're listening. Corporations can be every bit as coercive. For someone who cares so much about his own pocketbook, you are surprisingly dense when it comes to acknowledging the power money actually confers.

For instance, your silly idea that competition and "choice" will solve everything. I agree that choice is a good thing, and in theory that choice is the ultimate trump card when it comes to driving economic efficiencies. The problem is, what happens in reality is that the "choices" we do have are largely illusory. When you have, e.g., collusion (almost impossible to prove nowadays under the corporation-friendly antitrust laws and lackluster enforcement) -- even just "soft" collusion of the sort where there's a tacit understanding on the part of more or less stable competitors that one will not blatantly undercut the other(s) -- and there's no real "choice" offered to the consumer? Take cell phone companies. They all suck sweaty donkey balls. Even the "good" ones like T-Mobile are only "good" because they're competing against the cesspools that are Sprint and AT&T. Take a look at the contracts they offer you. You're locked into this one company for some set period of time and you can't negotiate this away with any of them. All of them require you to sign arbitration agreements that will effectively tie your hands and hamper your ability to enforce your very few legal rights when they inevitably violate them (how many of you have $20k to spend on a private arbitrator and an attorney to fight over a bogus $500 bill -- which they can slap onto your credit report, by the way, without so much as needing to offer evidence that the charge is valid -- you could otherwise resolve in small claims court for 25 bucks?). There ARE NO REAL OPTIONS out there for people who don't want to agree to these things, and the barriers to entry into the cell phone market are astronomical, so don't bet on some mom-and-pop cell phone competitor being able to offer you anything approaching a better deal. And don't pretend you can just walk away from needing a cell phone, either. Good luck finding a professional employer who won't mind never being able to reach you when you're away from your home or office phone.

It is your unwillingness to tiptoe away from theory and allow yourself a peek at reality that makes YOU, my friend, the real socialist.

Oh my goodness. Do any of you have children? Have any of you breastfed your own child? The case, statute, and discrimination issues aside, there is a need for a broader discussion about what's the norm (the male employee with no day-to-day childcare responsibilities), why it's the norm (because the culture of many corporations grew out of a male dominant culture), and whether that should change now that women have been an integral part of the workforce, for, oh, the last two or three decades at least. Women should not have to become "men" just to work along side them. It is important that people--women and men--voice their desire for a change and work to make that change happen. (I understand from one of the commenters that the woman in this case may not have actually voiced her desire for an accommodation, which is unfortunate and should be a strike against her unless perhaps she knew, based on company policy or prior practice, that there was no point in asking). It's not just women that would like a change--plenty of men would like to see changes that are more closely aligned with values that are stereotyped as female values (e.g., more time to spend with their children), and thankfully men have started to come forward and demand that from employers. Employment discrimination based on sex seems so dated and misses the mark in many ways--I don't have any of the answers, but it does seem like it is time for a new kind of discussion. (and yes, I am aware that critiques of the male-centered workplace and the "ideal" male employee have been around in academic literature for a couple of decades already, but many of those academics were rather polarizing in my view and did not address these problems as something both men and women would have an interest in changing together)

Elie’s moobs lactate chocolate syrup.
It’s going to get him fired too.

79, let me see if I got this straight:

I say: Governmental power is much more dangerous than corporate power.

You say: But what if Jimbob makes a fantastically terrible choice and is screwed over by Disney?

I say: Jimbob's choice is his own problem, and no one's killing/imprisoning him. Governments kill and imprison people; corporations don't, and so are less dangerous.

You say: THERE ARE NO GOOD CELL PHONE COMPANIES! So, government power is no more dangerous than corporate power.

Is that about right?

Isotoneronly used Dan Marino only for commercials = racist = sexist = socialist = anti-lactate.

82, gah, you have bested me by completely ignoring the broader point in my comments and picking out random words from my hypotheticals. WELL DONE SIR.

However, I realize now that this must all be an exercise in philosophical diversion for you. I mean, since we all have Real Choice and the only reason any of us wouldn't be fabulously wealthy is because we made BAD CHOICES, you clearly have no REAL problem with the way things are going in this country, as it is entirely your own decision to stay here, unfettered by any external forces over which you have no control. You're the one who made the fantastically terrible choice to live in America. Don't complain now just because you don't like the way things are going. Move somewhere friendlier to markets, like Saudi Arabia. It's not like anyone's holding a gun to your head and saying "you are required to stay in America." At least not yet. But of course, that's going to happen once Obamanomics make America the next Great Socialist State (and everyone knows socialism is the same as totalitarianism), so if you have an ounce of brains inside of you, you'll leave now while you have the chance. This is completely and entirely within your power and if you have any problems meeting your own personal goals, as you yourself have said, it's all completely your own fault for making the stupid decision to live in America. Really, you should have seen the socialist revolution coming when you decided to move here -- and likely did, but decided to make the choice to live here anyway. You have no one to blame but yourself for your irredeemably stupid decision to live in America, so just deal with the consequences and stop complaining like other people should kowtow to your own personal individual preference for free markets. The marketplace has spoken and it has spoken in favor of teh socialism.

84, what? I am confused. I don't know who you think I am or what you think I'm saying, but I'm not and I'm not, so chill.

Voting with my feet re country choice is reasonable. I like this one, thanks, socialism and all. It's not my ideal country, sure, but it's the best out there, and I'm not complaining. Likewise, I'm not the world's biggest fan of corporate power. I have one and only one point: governmental power is more dangerous than corporate power. This point has been maligned but not in any way refuted so far. Other than railing against . . . something? . . . do you have an answer to this point?

People, if you can't write your comment in under 3 sentences, nobody is going to read it!

"You can milk anything with nipples."

"I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"

Well done, 87. Thanks for the much-needed a.m. laugh.

Wonder what the "wise Latina" would say. Oh wait, she's not wise.

There's a reason they call Justice Stratton the "Velvet Hammer" in Ohio. She is the most militantly conservative member of the Ohio Supreme Court. Any woman who think's they'll get any sympathy from Justice Stratton has never been nailed by the Velvet Hammer.

i guess just some good ol conservative activism at work, funny how they always claim liberal activism as this horrible thing while going around and fucking every individual one by one

From the statement of facts: "Allen began working for Totes on July 27, 2006. After about a week of working at Totes and pumping her breasts on her lunch break Allen decided on her own, *without discussing it with any Totes representative*, that she could no longer wait until 11:00 a.m. to pump her breasts. Alien began taking an additional break at approximately 10:00 a.m. to pump her breasts. *Allen continued to take her other breaks*." (emphasis added)

After this she got caught by a supervisor, got in trouble for taking breaks without asking, and only then asked for an accommodation. I should add that when she was hired she agreed to the employer's break schedules.

The fact is that she was an easily replaceable temp, didn't handle the situation correctly, and then got fired for it. She is neither a victim of gender discrimination nor pregnancy discrimination. She is a victim of her own inability to handle this situation in a mature manner.

92 - I find it ludicrous that anything so rational could form the basis of a judicial opinion. Surely you have misread the facts because your version leaves little cause for righteous indignation.

47= too lazy to breastfeed and desperate to justify it.

I meant 48 = too lazy to breastfeed and desperate to justify it

85, that point has been refuted, you just refuse to acknowledge it. Instead of addressing the examples set forth above, you cherry-pick a couple of random pieces to try and make the argument look ridiculous. You're turning the opposing argument into a straw man rather than substantively address it -- that's generally a good indicator that you are incapable of defending your own argument on its own merits.

The ONLY substantive argument you have made in support of your point of view (i.e., that corporate power cannot be as threatening as government power) is that governments have guns and can put you in jail. I countered that, in a neocon world, corporations have guns and the ability to de facto imprison someone. In other words, in a neocon world, might makes right -- how is this any better, for the average person, than oppressive government? If I'm being ordered around at gun point and having my freedoms stripped away, I frankly don't care WHO is doing it; I just want someone to stop them. Rather than address the substance of this direct counterpoint to your argument, you attempted to sidestep it by arguing that my hypothetical individual made a bad "choice" by deciding to live in an oppressive, corporate-controlled regime. So I pointed out, again by real-life example, that choice only counts if it's meaningful (as another example, one you may find more palatable since it involves evil governments instead of evil corporations, it isn't very meaningful to say one has the "choice" of living in 1984's Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia, is it?) -- in other words, someone can only be deemed "responsible" for making a bad choice if that person realistically had other options. Otherwise choice is rendered meaningless (don't forget, too, that my hypothetical individual made his choices, such as they were, based on factual circumstances that changed -- and that he had no way of knowing would change so drastically). Rather than defend your "choice" argument (or even concede it but suggest alternative grounds for your position, which I would have respected), you proceed to mock the form of my arguments with no regard for their substance. So I again tried to show you that your "choice" argument was unconvincing, this time through facetious reference to your "choice" to live in a "socialist" state.

So whence your own confusion? I know the source of mine: your unwillingness to actually bother defending your argument on its merits.

94/95 - 48 here, cut the La Leche crap, I will acknowledge that there may be some advantages to breast-feeding, most undeniably cost (when you don't lose your job for being stupid about how you do it), but deciding to use formula is a reasonable decision made by many very good mothers who should not be vilified on the basis of that choice. You want to discuss, bring some indisputable facts to the table, otherwise, you are just parroting crap you did not bother to look into, and I breast fed both of my sons for a variety of personal reasons.

94, are women who are physically unable to breastfeed also lazy and desperate to justify it? I've known women whose breasts were too small and didn't produce enough milk to breastfeed (in fact, this happens a hell of a lot more often than people like you are willing to admit -- some approaching half of women are physically unable to breastfeed for various reasons including quantity of milk produced). Screw you and your guilt-mongering. Let people mother their own kids the best way they know how.

80:

I am a female attorney without children. My legal opinion regarding this matter is no less valid than yours because I've yet to become impregnated.

If there is a need for a discussion, by all means, start the discussion. But keep it out of the courts. Take it up with your legislature and do your part as a citizen by engaging those with whom you share similar interests. Rally the ovaries, as it were.

The court's interpretation of the relevant law was correct. Breastfeeding is a choice; it is by no means inherently necessary to birthing and raising children, a legally protected activity.

If you don't like the law, then get off your ass and get it changed.

It is shocking to me the number of unapologetic socialists posting on here. 90 of the first 99 comments here read as if they could have been pulled straight from Das Kapital. The level of infiltration has not been this bad in America since the 1950s.

99 = socialist

Pumping in the bathroom is disgusting. I would have pumped at my desk.

Why ain't you breast-feeding? You appear to be capable.

Mind your own bid'ness.

Ma'am, you don't breast-feed him, he'll hate you for it later. That's why we wound up in prison.

Anyway, that's what Doc Schwartz tells us.

105 = socialist

My question is whether other employees were able to engage in multiple "smoke breaks" in addition to bathroom breaks. Seems to me that if the employer allows employees to take these "smoke breaks" they should allow a new mother to take "pump breaks."

108 = Blood Red Maoist

Wait... they *schedule* bathroom breaks at this place?

Um... ew.

I mean, seriously, when nature calls, it fucking calls. And you can listen, or you can be an idiot.

99--I am changing the law-- I am part of a local initiative to change certain laws in my city and state ever since I encountered problems while lactating and serving jury duty after having given birth just six weeks earlier. However, currently I am doing this while sitting on my ass, which is too fat to get off of right now because I am 8 months pregnant with yet another future taxpayer and voter. I do not discount the opinions of women without children (don't forget, I used to be one of those women) and don't believe my comment at 80 suggested as much. If it did, I apologize, although I am a bit sick and tired of this idiotic battle between people with children and people without.

99--I am changing the law-- I am part of a local initiative to change certain laws in my city and state ever since I encountered problems while lactating and serving jury duty after having given birth just six weeks earlier. However, currently I am doing this while sitting on my ass, which is too fat to get off of right now because I am 8 months pregnant with yet another future taxpayer and voter. I do not discount the opinions of women without children (don't forget, I used to be one of those women) and don't believe my comment at 80 suggested as much. If it did, I apologize, although I am a bit sick and tired of this idiotic battle between people with children and people without.

"I am 8 months pregnant with yet another future taxpayer and voter." Don't forget "future socialist."

They need NY's law: N.Y. Labor Law § 206-c (2007) states that employers must allow breastfeeding mothers reasonable, unpaid break times to express milk and make a reasonable attempt to provide a private location for her to do so. Prohibits discrimination against breastfeeding mothers.

114 = socialist

Mystttal

More typos please!

kthnxbye

My firm has a "mother's room" for whatever it is that women do in there. Personally, I think they just go to sleep.

Pretty ridiculous opinion. Way to prove once again that no one should want to live within your borders, Ohio.

In case this is of any help to someone in need: They make plastic cup inserts (kind of like a hollow curved chicken cutlet with a nipple hole on the inside) that fit inside a bra to catch leaking milk between pumpings.

I, for one, would like to thank ATL for keeping us abreast of things.

It's nice to see SOTOMAYOR weighing in at #61. I could actually see that happening.

LAST!

not quite last.

123 = socialist