Don't let the Red Door hit you on the way out.

That was the message from an Elizabeth Arden Red Door salon in Woodbury, LI, that fired an assistant sales manager for taking too much time off during her high-risk pregnancy, according to a lawsuit filed in Brooklyn federal court.

Sandra Madero, 35, of Valley Stream, said the company violated her rights and is suing the high-end salon for $4 million.

"I don't understand why they treated me like this," she said.

Madero became pregnant with her second child in 2005, while she said she was working 60 hours a week. When she began losing weight and having contractions, her doctor told her to cut back on hours.

Her bosses said that as a salaried staffer, she wasn't entitled to a lighter schedule, her suit alleges. Instead, she took unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, which allows pregnant workers to take three months off.

When the three months were up, she faced the same problem. Her doctor didn't want her working more than 30 hours a week - but her bosses wouldn't accept her taking on a lighter workload, the suit claims.

She used vacation days, and she was fired when those ran out - a week before her baby was born, the suit alleges.

A representative for Elizabeth Arden declined to comment.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04282008/news/regionalnews/pregnancy_leave_suit_vs__salon_108480.htm

kinda odd that a company so dependent on woman would be such dicks over a woman problem. :@@:

kinda odd that a company so dependent on woman would be such dicks over a woman problem. :@@:
If you do something outside of work that affects your ability to work, you shouldn't expect special treatment when you quit showing up to work. This is life.

If you do something outside of work that affects your ability to work, you shouldn't expect special treatment when you quit showing up to work. This is life.
remember that if you're in a car accident and can't work free overtime anymore.

most places only allow 3 months maternity leave usually,but not always,starting one month before the baby is born. That's how it is and women everywhere have to deal with it. If you don't want to lose your job,don't get pregnant.

remember that if you're in a car accident and can't work free overtime anymore.

You can't control an accident,it's one of those "shit happens" things. But you can control whether you get pregnant or not.

remember that if you're in a car accident and can't work free overtime anymore.Great point.

You can't control an accident,it's one of those "shit happens" things. But you can control whether you get pregnant or not.Really? So all those "accidental" abortions are really pre-meditated murder then.

remember that if you're in a car accident and can't work free overtime anymore.
If I was in a car accident and couldn't work for an extended period of time, I would expect to be fired. This is life. You're not entitled to your job.

Really? So all those "accidental" abortions are really pre-meditated murder then.


Did I say that?

If I was in a car accident and couldn't work for an extended period of time, I would expect to be fired. This is life. You're not entitled to your job.
i didn't say you were, just that they're dicks. and myopic dicks too. the backlash from this is going to cost them more than giving her paid leave would have.

i didn't say you were, just that they're dicks.
Dicks for refusing to employ someone who can't do her job? I would have done the same thing.

Did I say that?No, i did, using your reasoning. :)

Dicks for refusing to employ someone who can't do her job? I would have done the same thing.
and you'd get sued too. a temporary reduction in hours is a reasonable accommodation for a temporary disability (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012111----000-.html).

it's not that she can't do her job, she just couldn't be a slave for a few months. they had no problem when she let them subvert overtime laws by paying her a salary and putting her on an hourly work schedule.

and you'd get sued too. a temporary reduction in hours is a reasonable accommodation for a temporary disability (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00012111----000-.html).
They gave her three months, as required by law. She blew it too early.
it's not that she can't do her job, she just couldn't be a slave for a few months. they had no problem when she let them subvert overtime laws by paying her a salary and putting her on an hourly work schedule.
"Subvert overtime laws"? What the fuck are you talking about? If she was salaried, she isn't entitled to overtime. If she had a problem with that, she shouldn't have accepted being salaried. This is how jobs work.

They gave her three months, as required by law. She blew it too early.
the FMLA and ADA are two different laws.

"Subvert overtime laws"? What the fuck are you talking about? If she was salaried, she isn't entitled to overtime. If she had a problem with that, she shouldn't have accepted being salaried. This is how jobs work.
GM got caught doing that-they were sued and lost.

Lucky F'n girls... getting 3 months maternity leave for sex... if guys got that they'd NEVER work lol.

I agree with Mike, the employers were dicks. Just because they may have technically been within their rights to force her to work long free overtime hours doesn't make it ok.

Well speaking as someone who had a high risk pregnancy....they were dicks. I went on bedrest for a month before I had my son and then took 6 weeks after I had him. I was encouraged to take as long as I needed. Same when I had my hysterectomy. I guess it just depends on the kind of dicks you work for .... because I work for dicks.

I stole everything that wasn't nailed down before I quit to have my last kid.

They had me hauling big carts and climbing stairs clutching a heavy atlas, the turds.

The Atlas looks real nice in my own library now--among quite a few other things.

I stole everything that wasn't nailed down before I quit to have my last kid.

They had me hauling big carts and climbing stairs clutching a heavy atlas, the turds.

The Atlas looks real nice in my own library now--among quite a few other things.


LOL Good for you!

I guess I should feel lucky. Heck even the women that work in our warehouse are offered lighter jobs during their pregnancy. Like I said..I guess it depends on what kind of dicks you work for.

I agree with Mike, the employers were dicks. Just because they may have technically been within their rights to force her to work long free overtime hours doesn't make it ok.
Exactly. Getting pregnant may have been her fault, but having a high risk pregnancy was not. She could have sustained serious physical damage from that overwork, just because she couldn't afford to quit the job that wouldn't accommodate her temporary disability. I'm not sure if she should win the lawsuit (although she should if there's a precedent for it), but what they did was still pretty wrong. I know her bosses aren't legally required to have compassion for people, but it really makes them look like jerks when they don't.

i can't wait until assholes like borghunter have a wife and she's pregnant, and she gots a real good job, and she gets fired. because she wants to be with her baby. breast feed. you know. be a PROPER mother.
having a healthy baby happens BEFORE the birth. asshole.

i can't wait until assholes like borghunter have a wife and she's pregnant, and she gots a real good job, and she gets fired. because she wants to be with her baby. breast feed. you know. be a PROPER mother.
having a healthy baby happens BEFORE the birth. asshole.


:worship:

Agreed.

i can't wait until assholes like borghunter have a wife and she's pregnant, and she gots a real good job, and she gets fired. because she wants to be with her baby. breast feed. you know. be a PROPER mother.
having a healthy baby happens BEFORE the birth. asshole.


Maybe he can't wait for you to have a business so that you can get your wife and kids decent medical care, and then your business goes under because your employee decides to take 3 months of family leave and all of her vacation at the same time.

I don't see a good excuse for using 3 months of family leave and all of your vacation days for a pregnancy - it's not like women are completely helpless when they're six months pregnant. If it's hazardous to you and your child's health to work while you're pregnant, then you should not be working in the first place. Period. What kind of person risks the life of their unborn child for a few months of employment anyways?

Jobs are NOT an entitlement!

you got a right to say that when you lug around a baby for 9 months. even at 6 months there is tiredness, even with lots of rest. back pains, leg pain, swollen ankles and legs.
dude, shut up. if you were standing next to me right now, i would literally kick the mortal dog shit out of you.

Maybe he can't wait for you to have a business so that you can get your wife and kids decent medical care, and then your business goes under because your employee decides to take 3 months of family leave and all of her vacation at the same time.

I don't see a good excuse for using 3 months of family leave and all of your vacation days for a pregnancy - it's not like women are completely helpless when they're six months pregnant. If it's hazardous to you and your child's health to work while you're pregnant, then you should not be working in the first place. Period. What kind of person risks the life of their unborn child for a few months of employment anyways?

Jobs are NOT an entitlement!


It depends on the problem during pregnancy. I was ordered to bedrest and was put in the hospital several times because if I was even remotely sitting up I could have had a seizure resulting in death of myself and my son.

Jobs aren't an entitlement...agreed. But compassion seems to be dead these days. Too sad.

you got a right to say that when you lug around a baby for 9 months. even at 6 months there is tiredness, even with lots of rest. back pains, leg pain, swollen ankles and legs.
dude, shut up. if you were standing next to me right now, i would literally kick the mortal dog shit out of you.

Very impressive. You're very brave on a message board.

As for pregnant mothers - if they can't handle employment and a pregnancy with 3 months leave, then they need to make a choice between the employment and the pregnancy. Simple.

Employers deserve compassion too, you know - they're the ones that created your job in the first place.

Jobs aren't an entitlement...agreed. But compassion seems to be dead these days. Too sad.


that's the capitalist system for you.

leper, piss off.

Very impressive. You're very brave on a message board.

As for pregnant mothers - if they can't handle employment and a pregnancy with 3 months leave, then they need to make a choice between the employment and the pregnancy. Simple.

Employers deserve compassion too, you know - they're the ones that created your job in the first place.


Again I'm just lucky my employers told me that my life was important...and having me as an employee was important. It was here waiting on me when I was able to return. So I never had to choose. :thumbs:

that's the capitalist system for you.



Yep, it's that capitalist system that has created a world where your child has a 99.5% chance of surviving birth - don't abuse the system that protects you.

Don't expect compassion from your employer - it's a business. If you want compassion, go to family and friends.

even at 6 months there is tiredness, even with lots of rest. back pains, leg pain, swollen ankles and legs.
Fantastic. If this prevents her from doing her job for more than three months, then she no longer deserves her job, and her employer is under no obligation to keep her on the payroll. That's how the world works. If I had a doctor's note saying that I was permanently disabled (through something that happened outside of work), does that mean I can still hold my job and I don't ever have to show up to it? Damn, that sounds like a nice racket.

Fantastic. If this prevents her from doing her job for more than three months, then she no longer deserves her job, and her employer is under no obligation to keep her on the payroll. That's how the world works. If I had a doctor's note saying that I was permanently disabled (through something that happened outside of work), does that mean I can still hold my job and I don't ever have to show up to it? Damn, that sounds like a nice racket.


Pregnancy is temporary. Being permanently diabled would be well permanent. Bad comparison.

Pregnancy is temporary. Being permanently diabled would be well permanent. Bad comparison.
Alright, let's say I had some exotic injury that would take three years to heal. Or I was in a coma and doctors didn't know when I'd wake up. Would you say that the government has the right to force the employer to employ me? Where do you draw the line? How long does a "temporary disability" have to be before you accept that it's an unfair burden upon the employer? And why should this woman get special treatment (she blew off her three months too early)?

Alright, let's say I had some exotic injury that would take three years to heal. Or I was in a coma and doctors didn't know when I'd wake up. Would you say that the government has the right to force the employer to employ this person? Where do you draw the line? How long does a "temporary disability" have to be before you accept that it's an unfair burden upon the employer? And why should this woman get special treatment (she blew off her three months too early)?


Can you name an exotic injury????

And how would you really know it would take 3 years to heal???

Must be pretty exotic huh?

Can you name an exotic injury????

And how would you really know it would take 3 years to heal???

Must be pretty exotic huh?
You responded to one sentence in my post. Read my post again and try again.

You responded to one sentence in my post. Read my post again and try again.


:lolhit:

Borg ... i dont necessarily feel that the government should make sure this lady has her job or not. My main point was that compassion would be nice...whether it should be expected or not.

Borg ... i dont necessarily feel that the government should make sure this lady has her job or not. My main point was that compassion would be nice...whether it should be expected or not.
Have you ever tried looking at it from the point of view of the employer? An employee out on indefinite medical leave is very difficult to replace. You have to find a competent temp who knows, up front, that this is a temporary job and that he could be fired at any time. The employer might not be able to do such a thing. Perhaps they're teetering on the brink of losing money and this is the thing that'd push them over the edge into bankruptcy. Maybe they had to fire the woman to save the business.

Businesses don't exist to be "compassionate". They exist to make money.

Have you ever tried looking at it from the point of view of the employer? An employee out on indefinite medical leave is very difficult to replace. You have to find a competent temp who knows, up front, that this is a temporary job and that he could be fired at any time. The employer might not be able to do such a thing. Perhaps they're teetering on the brink of losing money and this is the thing that'd push them over the edge into bankruptcy. Maybe they had to fire the woman to save the business.

Business don't exist to be "compassionate". They exist to make money.


I dont disagree with any of that.

I still think compassion is a good thing.

Alright, let's say I had some exotic injury that would take three years to heal. Or I was in a coma and doctors didn't know when I'd wake up. Would you say that the government has the right to force the employer to employ me? Where do you draw the line? How long does a "temporary disability" have to be before you accept that it's an unfair burden upon the employer? And why should this woman get special treatment (she blew off her three months too early)?

Slippery slope has never been a very good argument. I can make one in the other way wondering where we draw the line if we're not going to let women with high-risk pregnancies have some flexibility.

The woman in this case also gave birth a week after her 3 months ended. Without knowing any other details; I think it's silly to just assume that she made a bad choice. She might've been at 6 months and the baby came a week late.

I still think compassion is a good thing.
Not if it means sacrificing your business, it isn't.

Slippery slope has never been a very good argument. I can make one in the other way wondering where we draw the line if we're not going to let women with high-risk pregnancies have some flexibility.

The woman in this case also gave birth a week after her 3 months ended. Without knowing any other details; I think it's silly to just assume that she made a bad choice.

Good point and what was her condition. I guess I missed that part?

It does seem a bit harsh to "punish" high risk pregnancies as opposed to women who have breezy pregnancies.

Sometimes a lady just has to take matters into her own hands.

Some might call it "stealing" but actually I was just "helping" both myself and the baby.

I think Borg just doesn't understand because he knows it could never happen to him.

I don't even want to think about what would happen if I was pregnant and I got fired because I had to be on bed rest. Some women are put on bed rest after the first 3 months or so - that's 6 months that they can't get out of bed or do anything to care for their families. What if she was a single mother? What if she couldn't get another job? Then she and her baby could end up homeless because she gave birth ONE WEEK after her three months and all her vacation time were up. I really hesitate to say that the government should help take care of anyone, but that's one situation in which I think it would be justified for her to get welfare or something. Of course Borg will probably say "Hey, sucks for her! Let her starve! That's capitalism!"

Of course Borg will probably say "Hey, sucks for her! Let her starve! That's capitalism!"
You're quite correct. I have no compassion for people who cannot help themselves. If she was that bad off, I think the government should probably take away her child as well. He'd be better off in a foster home with that pathetic of a parent.

This is, of course, a hypothetical situation anyway. The woman probably did not become homeless due to this.

I think Borg just doesn't understand because he knows it could never happen to him.


Or maybe you don't understand because you know you'll never own a business. There's more than a pregnant lady's side to the story, you know.

This whole argument only makes women even less desireable as employees.

This whole argument only makes women even less desireable as employees.
Indeed. I'm looking at this and seeing all women employees under 50 years old as potential liabilities. I wonder if this woman realizes that she's hurting the women's rights cause with these kinds of shenanigans?

You're quite correct. I have no compassion for people who cannot help themselves. If she was that bad off, I think the government should probably take away her child as well. He'd be better off in a foster home with that pathetic of a parent.

This is, of course, a hypothetical situation anyway. The woman probably did not become homeless due to this.


If she was that bad off??????? It wasn't her fault and she shouldn't have her children taken away due to a high risk pregnancy or being forced on bedrest!!!! Maybe since I've been through it it's easier for me to see how hard it is to have a high risk pregnancy. I was on bedrest and had to have people take care of me but that didn't make me "pathetic" parent.

:slap:

If she was that bad off??????? It wasn't her fault and she shouldn't have her children taken away due to a high risk pregnancy or being forced on bedrest!!!! Maybe since I've been through it it's easier for me to see how hard it is to have a high risk pregnancy. I was on bedrest and had to have people take care of me but that didn't make me "pathetic" parent.

:slap:
No, and you weren't homeless during that time, were you? If she became homeless she would be a pathetic parent.

No, and you weren't homeless during that time, were you? If she became homeless she would be a pathetic parent.
Well I assume that Musiq had another parent around to help care for her children while she was on bed rest and couldn't work. What happens if the woman doesn't have anyone else around to help her? If she doesn't have a job, she can't pay rent. You can't pay rent, your landlord kicks you out. And then you're homeless. It's not that hard.

Or maybe you don't understand because you know you'll never own a business. There's more than a pregnant lady's side to the story, you know.
Of course there's another side to the story. I think that since they fired her that quickly she probably wasn't a great employee in the first place. But if she had been a good, reliable employee before then I would not fire her if I was her boss because she had to take off an extra ONE WEEK after her three months. (I'm not including the vacation days she used in that consideration, because those are hers to use however she wants and it shouldn't be held against her that she took them.)

This whole argument only makes women even less desireable as employees.
Yep, don't hire a woman because she might get pregnant and her doctor might order her to be on bed rest, and then you'd just have to fire her. Does that sound logical to you? Would you make your female employees sign an agreement not to get pregnant to prevent that? Or make them promise that if they DO get pregnant they'll quit so you don't have to fire them?

This argument makes me sad because I want to have kids, and I know that I will probably also have to have a job when I have kids, but now it seems that I should be afraid to get pregnant because if there are complications I won't be able to keep my job.

Of course, if I were in her position I would have just quit when I realized that I couldn't handle it... But how many places would hire a pregnant woman who admits that she's having a tough time of it and might not be able to work sometimes? None, I'd suspect. So then I'd be stuck with no job and no money to pay rent, and Borg would call me pathetic and say that the government should take away my child.

I think that since they fired her that quickly she probably wasn't a great employee in the first place.
That's the crux of the matter. An employer will often be flexible with this kind of thing for good employees. For bad employees, generally not.

That's the crux of the matter. An employer will often be flexible with this kind of thing for good employees. For bad employees, generally not.

Tell me, in your life experiences, exactly how many times have you been confronted with situations even remotely close to the one you describe above.

Tell me, in your life experiences, exactly how many times have you been confronted with situations even remotely close to the one you describe above.
Red herring?

Of course there's another side to the story.

Your dismissal of Borg's view because "[pregnancy] will never happen to him" indicated that you didn't recognize this fact.

I think that since they fired her that quickly she probably wasn't a great employee in the first place.

I think so too.

But if she had been a good, reliable employee before then I would not fire her if I was her boss because she had to take off an extra ONE WEEK after her three months. (I'm not including the vacation days she used in that consideration, because those are hers to use however she wants and it shouldn't be held against her that she took them.)

I agree.

Yep, don't hire a woman because she might get pregnant and her doctor might order her to be on bed rest, and then you'd just have to fire her. Does that sound logical to you? Would you make your female employees sign an agreement not to get pregnant to prevent that? Or make them promise that if they DO get pregnant they'll quit so you don't have to fire them?

No, but in the case of equally or closely-equal qualified individuals, I would take the women's likelihood of pregnancy into consideration.

This argument makes me sad because I want to have kids, and I know that I will probably also have to have a job when I have kids, but now it seems that I should be afraid to get pregnant because if there are complications I won't be able to keep my job.

Your argument makes me sad because it seems like many women want to be single parents without the consequences associated with being a single parent. They'd rather sue their unsympathetic employers than try to find a reliable loved one to help them out with raising their children

Of course, if I were in her position I would have just quit when I realized that I couldn't handle it... But how many places would hire a pregnant woman who admits that she's having a tough time of it and might not be able to work sometimes? None, I'd suspect. So then I'd be stuck with no job and no money to pay rent, and Borg would call me pathetic and say that the government should take away my child.

Or you could wait to be in a steady marriage before having children....crazy, I know.

Your dismissal of Borg's view because "[pregnancy] will never happen to him" indicated that you didn't recognize this fact.



I think so too.



I agree.



No, but in the case of equally or closely-equal qualified individuals, I would take the women's likelihood of pregnancy into consideration.



Your argument makes me sad because it seems like many women want to be single parents without the consequences associated with being a single parent. They'd rather sue their unsympathetic employers than try to find a reliable loved one to help them out with raising their children



Or you could wait to be in a steady marriage before having children....crazy, I know.

What perfect world do you live in??

I know a woman who thought they were in a great marriage and the guy up and leaves when she's 7 months pregnant. Now what? Not every woman chooses to be a single mom. Not every woman is as lucky as I was.

[/B]

What perfect world do you live in??

I know a woman who thought they were in a great marriage and the guy up and leaves when she's 7 months pregnant. Now what? Not every woman chooses to be a single mom. Not every woman is as lucky as I was.

I love how many women like to pretend that uncommitted men "happen" to women, like a lightning strike or natural disaster....it's just a stroke of "luck" if you find a partner that doesn't get fed up with you and actually helps you raise children.

Believe it or not, luck has nothing to do with it. My world isn't perfect - I just believe you're largely in control of your own fate.

I love how many women like to pretend that uncommitted men "happen" to women, like a lightning strike or natural disaster....it's just a stroke of "luck" if you find a partner that doesn't get fed up with you and actually helps you raise children.

Believe it or not, luck has nothing to do with it. My world isn't perfect - I just believe you're largely in control of your own fate.


:lolhit:

I was being sarcastic with the "lucky" comment. I do believe you are in control of most things but you can't control other people....if someone chooses to leave you what control do you have over that???

:slap:

if someone chooses to leave you what control do you have over that???


While I admit your control isn't absolute, but you control who you allow into your life and you influence who wants to stay.

While I admit your control isn't absolute, but you control who you allow into your life and you influence who wants to stay.


You think you can influence a guy who is deadset on not having kids but opps...gets a girl preggers and then bails because he didn't want kids.

You should write a book for women who are the "but I love him" type. They would fall heavy for a book that would give them insight on what to do to influence a man to stay with them.

Your argument makes me sad because it seems like many women want to be single parents without the consequences associated with being a single parent. They'd rather sue their unsympathetic employers than try to find a reliable loved one to help them out with raising their children

Or you could wait to be in a steady marriage before having children....crazy, I know.
What the hell? I do not want to be a single parent, and I definitely plan on being married (for at least a few years) before I have any children.

And Musiq is right about this. What if there were circumstances beyond the woman's control? Does a widow choose to be a single parent? And I don't think you can just know automatically if a man will leave you or not. Many guys seem great and nice and perfect and then freak out at the idea of becoming a father. Some men develop drug or alcohol problems - would you rather a woman stay with a drug addict just so she's not a single parent?

What the hell? I do not want to be a single parent, and I definitely plan on being married (for at least a few years) before I have any children.

And Musiq is right about this. What if there were circumstances beyond the woman's control? Does a widow choose to be a single parent? And I don't think you can just know automatically if a man will leave you or not. Many guys seem great and nice and perfect and then freak out at the idea of becoming a father. Some men develop drug or alcohol problems - would you rather a woman stay with a drug addict just so she's not a single parent?


:thumbs:

Good response. Leper has obviously not dated many men.

:lolhit:

And Musiq is right about this. What if there were circumstances beyond the woman's control? Does a widow choose to be a single parent? And I don't think you can just know automatically if a man will leave you or not. Many guys seem great and nice and perfect and then freak out at the idea of becoming a father. Some men develop drug or alcohol problems - would you rather a woman stay with a drug addict just so she's not a single parent?
But the true question is this: Why should the government punish the employer because of this? Life does suck sometimes, but it's not the employer's responsibility to help a woman in such a situation.

But the true question is this: Why should the government punish the employer because of this? Life does suck sometimes, but it's not the employer's responsibility to help a woman in such a situation.
I don't believe that the employer should be punished for this at all. Could you show me where I said that? I believe I stated that she should not win this lawsuit because her employers are completely within their rights in firing her for whatever reason.

I don't believe that the employer should be punished for this at all. Could you show me where I said that? I believe I stated that she should not win this lawsuit because her employers are completely within their rights in firing her for whatever reason.
That question wasn't directed specifically at you. It was directed to anyone who believes that.

They may have been wrong, but that's not the same as having done something illegal and deserving of a lawsuit.

I don't believe that the employer should be punished for this at all. Could you show me where I said that? I believe I stated that she should not win this lawsuit because her employers are completely within their rights in firing her for whatever reason.


I dont believe they were wrong either...a little harsh maybe but not really wrong. I think most of us thought they were just being dicks.

Wow, oddly enough I posted my last comment AFTER I read Musiq's post, which is now showing up after mine.

Wow, oddly enough I posted my last comment AFTER I read Musiq's post, which is now showing up after mine.
This is what happens when you non-administrator peons are allowed to delete your own posts. ;)

Wow, oddly enough I posted my last comment AFTER I read Musiq's post, which is now showing up after mine.


LOL

I deleted my last post because I was meaning to post to you and I replied to Borg instead.

Sorry for the confucksion.

:@@:

Aha! I was slightly confused for a moment there. :lolhit:

You know, you folks are completely ignoring a huge piece of this puzzle; she was employed by an Elizabeth Arden Red Door Spa. This is an upscale, high-end, very expensive spa - they're not going broke any time soon because one of their employees has to take some extra time off and they're sure as hell wouldn't have much trouble finding someone to fill her position for a few months (fancy digs, elegance and luxury is what that place is all about - can you image the tips? They'd have people lined up around the block for that job).

Go here (http://www.reddoorspas.com/gc/certificate.asp?locationid=1200&qs=f60681a246fc799bcc485a86069e53ad|2585149|1|)and click on Individual Services for a list of treatments and the prices they charge. The cheapest thing on the list is a paraffin wax for hands at $15. Imagine that, they charge people $15 just to dip their hands in melted wax. The next cheapest treatment is a chin wax for $24, something you can easily do at home for a few dollars (or no dollars, depending on your method). No, the people going to this place are rich and are happy to pay through the nose for even the simplest of treatments - I'm pretty sure the business would survive by giving this employee some extra time off (even unpaid time off would have been acceptable).

From the Red Door Spa people:

When guests escape through the Red Door they are immediately immersed in the luxury that is synonymous with Elizabeth Arden. Guests may select signature spa and salon services from an all-encompassing menu of services and treatments, which includes skin care, massage, and body treatments as well as nail care, hair design, and makeup artistry. Red Door Spa is committed to enhancing the lives of its guests through beauty, harmony, and well-being.

Does no one find it odd that Red Door Spas are "committed to enhancing the lives of their guests through beauty, harmony, and well-being" but they treat their employees so shabbily?

You think you can influence a guy who is deadset on not having kids but opps...gets a girl preggers and then bails because he didn't want kids.

Holy crap! You want me to have sympathy for a woman sleeping with and having the baby of a guy who does not want to have children? Forget it. Besides, what kind of twisted logic fathoms that an employer should be responsible for that!

You know, you folks are completely ignoring a huge piece of this puzzle; she was employed by an Elizabeth Arden Red Door Spa. This is an upscale, high-end, very expensive spa - they're not going broke any time soon because one of their employees has to take some extra time off and they're sure as hell wouldn't have much trouble finding someone to fill her position for a few months (fancy digs, elegance and luxury is what that place is all about - can you image the tips? They'd have people lined up around the block for that job).

Go here (http://www.reddoorspas.com/gc/certificate.asp?locationid=1200&qs=f60681a246fc799bcc485a86069e53ad|2585149|1|)and click on Individual Services for a list of treatments and the prices they charge. The cheapest thing on the list is a paraffin wax for hands at $15. Imagine that, they charge people $15 just to dip their hands in melted wax. The next cheapest treatment is a chin wax for $24, something you can easily do at home for a few dollars (or no dollars, depending on your method). No, the people going to this place are rich and are happy to pay through the nose for even the simplest of treatments - I'm pretty sure the business would survive by giving this employee some extra time off (even unpaid time off would have been acceptable).

From the Red Door Spa people:



Does no one find it odd that Red Door Spas are "committed to enhancing the lives of their guests through beauty, harmony, and well-being" but they treat their employees so shabbily?
This is more evidence, then, that the employee fired probably wasn't very good at her job. If she was, her employer would have taken pains to make sure she was welcomed back after her pregnancy was completed, unless her employer has absolutely no idea how to run a business. And if she was a good employee and the spa just lost her...then it serves the spa right for treating a good employee that way.

Holy crap! You want me to have sympathy for a woman sleeping with and having the baby of a guy who does not want to have children? Forget it. Besides, what kind of twisted logic fathoms that an employer should be responsible for that!


I never said the employer should be responsible for that. And you can get pregnant even while trying to prevent pregnacy.

Are you complete clueless or do you just like to argue??

I never said the employer should be responsible for that. And you can get pregnant even while trying to prevent pregnacy.
Last I checked, abortions were legal in the United States.

Last I checked, abortions were legal in the United States.


Oh so she should abort the baby because the guy leaves???

Not everyone is comfortable with killing a baby.

Oh so she should abort the baby because the guy leaves???

Not everyone is comfortable with killing a baby.
Then you shouldn't have been having sex which has the potential to form a baby you don't want and aren't willing to abort. There are consequences to actions.

Then you shouldn't have been having sex which has the potential to form a baby you don't want and aren't willing to abort. There are consequences to actions.
In this hypothetical situation, the woman wants to have a baby and the man at least seemed to want to have a baby until the baby was actually on its way. Therefore this argument makes no sense.

Then you shouldn't have been having sex which has the potential to form a baby you don't want and aren't willing to abort. There are consequences to actions.


Well I was talking about the guy not wanting the baby but the woman keeping it. So I guess sing your song to the guy who is having sex but doesn't want kids.

What the hell? I do not want to be a single parent, and I definitely plan on being married (for at least a few years) before I have any children.

This is what you said before...

Of course, if I were in her position I would have just quit when I realized that I couldn't handle it... But how many places would hire a pregnant woman who admits that she's having a tough time of it and might not be able to work sometimes? None, I'd suspect. So then I'd be stuck with no job and no money to pay rent, and Borg would call me pathetic and say that the government should take away my child.

If you have an employable husband, why would you not be able to pay rent?


And Musiq is right about this. What if there were circumstances beyond the woman's control? Does a widow choose to be a single parent? And I don't think you can just know automatically if a man will leave you or not. Many guys seem great and nice and perfect and then freak out at the idea of becoming a father. Some men develop drug or alcohol problems - would you rather a woman stay with a drug addict just so she's not a single parent?

A) I think the circumstances you're talking about are very rare - that is a woman meets a guy - she carefully screens him to make sure he will be a loyal and supportive mate. She gets pregnant. Doctor decides the pregnancy is high risk and orders her to stop working and spend her pregnancy in bedrest for 3+ months. In the meantime, her mate decides, (through no fault of the woman's, mind you!), to "freak out" and leave her high and dry with no money, support, nothing...

Okay, it's possible this happens, but I think you are talking about very rare circumstances. If it is one of those rare circumstances that are just beyond your control, then you need to turn to family first, charity second. Even then, I don't think your employer has any duty to help you.

B) The reality is that most women in this position either A) failed to screen the guy properly (e.g. that decided to have children with the "bad boy" - a proclivity I think you've admitted to having yourself) or B) drove the guy off.





OFF TOPIC - my personal hypothesis is that the real problem is that many white, American women are spoiled. They think they can have the career, children, raise a great family, and have good health with no help whatsoever. Well, you can't - that's why you need a supportive husband and you need to treat him respectfully. You can't have children with the "bad boy" and then expect to live the American Dream.

Now completely OT, what I observe happening in Texas is that loyal, responsible white guys are marrying the newer generations of Hispanic women, who suffer from the opposite problem - Hispanic men tend to be machismo asses who don't respect their women. So naturally, you have a good fit - white men and Latina women.

(Yes, I know, I'm launching into huge stereotypes, but that's what happens when you start hypothesizing from personal observation)

Then you shouldn't have been having sex which has the potential to form a baby you don't want and aren't willing to abort. There are consequences to actions.

Exactly.

A) I think the circumstances you're talking about are very rare - that is a woman meets a guy - she carefully screens him to make sure he will be a loyal and supportive mate. She gets pregnant. Doctor decides the pregnancy is high risk and orders her to stop working and spend her pregnancy in bedrest for 3+ months. In the meantime, her mate decides, (through no fault of the woman's, mind you!), to "freak out" and leave her high and dry with no money, support, nothing...

Okay, it's possible this happens, but I think you are talking about very rare circumstances. If it is one of those rare circumstances that are just beyond your control, then you need to turn to family first, charity second. Even then, I don't think your employer has any duty to help you.
Of course it's unlikely, I was just putting possibilities out there. And for about the third time, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EMPLOYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING THE WOMAN. I think they are completely within their rights here.

The reality is that most women in this position either A) failed to screen the guy properly (e.g. that decided to have children with the "bad boy" - a proclivity I think you've admitted to having yourself) or B) drove the guy off.
My boyfriend happens to be about the furthest thing from a "bad boy" there is, and I've been with him longer than anyone else. My second longest relationship ever was with Borg, and he's hardly the rebellious type either.

OFF TOPIC - my personal hypothesis is that the real problem is that many white, American women are spoiled. They think they can have the career, children, raise a great family, and have good health with no help whatsoever. Well, you can't - that's why you need a supportive husband and you need to treat him respectfully. You can't have children with the "bad boy" and then expect to live the American Dream.
I really hope that you don't think you're giving me some sort of advice that I can't figure out on my own, and I also hope that you're not suggesting that I'm spoiled.

Well I was talking about the guy not wanting the baby but the woman keeping it. So I guess sing your song to the guy who is having sex but doesn't want kids.
Of course. The guy should be held fully responsible for child support if he ditches the mom.

Then you shouldn't have been having sex which has the potential to form a baby you don't want and aren't willing to abort. There are consequences to actions.
Another note on this one... Are you saying that people who don't want to have a baby and don't want to have an abortion shouldn't have sex? Wow, I wonder why you never told me that when we were together. :rolleyes:

Of course. The guy should be held fully responsible for child support if he ditches the mom.


Yes...of course...because if the woman has to keep her legs closed if she doesn't want a baby then the man needs to keep his dick in his pants if he doesn't want a baby.

:slap:

I think the circumstances you're talking about are very rare

I'm afraid you don't have a clue on this particular subject, friend. Men desert their mates/families for all sorts of reasons (not just pregnancy), all the time.*










* No, SMW, it never happened to me.

Another note on this one... Are you saying that people who don't want to have a baby and don't want to have an abortion shouldn't have sex? Wow, I wonder why you never told me that when we were together. :rolleyes:
You were on the pill. The pill is extremely effective (to the tune of 99.9% success rate per year) and we both (rightly) considered the risk to be negligible.

This is what you said before...



If you have an employable husband, why would you not be able to pay rent?




A) I think the circumstances you're talking about are very rare - that is a woman meets a guy - she carefully screens him to make sure he will be a loyal and supportive mate. She gets pregnant. Doctor decides the pregnancy is high risk and orders her to stop working and spend her pregnancy in bedrest for 3+ months. In the meantime, her mate decides, (through no fault of the woman's, mind you!), to "freak out" and leave her high and dry with no money, support, nothing...

Okay, it's possible this happens, but I think you are talking about very rare circumstances. If it is one of those rare circumstances that are just beyond your control, then you need to turn to family first, charity second. Even then, I don't think your employer has any duty to help you.

B) The reality is that most women in this position either A) failed to screen the guy properly (e.g. that decided to have children with the "bad boy" - a proclivity I think you've admitted to having yourself) or B) drove the guy off.





OFF TOPIC - my personal hypothesis is that the real problem is that many white, American women are spoiled. They think they can have the career, children, raise a great family, and have good health with no help whatsoever. Well, you can't - that's why you need a supportive husband and you need to treat him respectfully. You can't have children with the "bad boy" and then expect to live the American Dream.

Now completely OT, what I observe happening in Texas is that loyal, responsible white guys are marrying the newer generations of Hispanic women, who suffer from the opposite problem - Hispanic men tend to be machismo asses who don't respect their women. So naturally, you have a good fit - white men and Latina women.

(Yes, I know, I'm launching into huge stereotypes, but that's what happens when you start hypothesizing from personal observation)


I dont think wanting to have a career and a family makes a woman spoiled. Nor do I think women need a hubby to do this either. There are a lot of women who make it on there own.

I agree that you can't be with a "bad boy" and expect the American Dream.

Respect should be a 2 way street.

You were on the pill. The pill is extremely effective (to the tune of 99.9% success rate per year) and we both (rightly) considered the risk to be negligible.
A negligible risk doesn't mean no risk. And by the way, my mother got pregnant when she was on the pill and so do many other women.

A negligible risk doesn't mean no risk. And by the way, my mother got pregnant when she was on the pill and so do many other women.
Do you really want to extend this discussion? We had many talks about the subject while we were together. Using this as a debate point is a surprisingly low tactic.

Do you really want to extend this discussion? We had many talks about the subject while we were together. Using this as a debate point is a surprisingly low tactic.
Oh come on. Here's my point: if the subject of this thread was on the pill when she got pregnant, would that really change your opinion? You're basically saying that she should've kept her legs shut and not gotten pregnant if she wanted to keep her job. Would she be worthy of your sympathy if there had only been a "negligible" risk?

Do you really want to extend this discussion? We had many talks about the subject while we were together. Using this as a debate point is a surprisingly low tactic.

I believe it was you that said the following:

Then you shouldn't have been having sex which has the potential to form a baby you don't want and aren't willing to abort. There are consequences to actions.

If you and Dark (or whomever) didn't want children, you shouldn't have been having sex. Your words. Deal with it.

I dont think wanting to have a career and a family makes a woman spoiled. Nor do I think women need a hubby to do this either. There are a lot of women who make it on there own.

I agree that you can't be with a "bad boy" and expect the American Dream.

Respect should be a 2 way street.
Good post. I completely agree with all points. :)

Oh come on. Here's my point: if the subject of this thread was on the pill when she got pregnant, would that really change your opinion? You're basically saying that she should've kept her legs shut and not gotten pregnant if she wanted to keep her job. Would she be worthy of your sympathy if there had only been a "negligible" risk?
I don't wish to pass judgment on the actions of the woman involved. My main points have revolved around the rights of the employer, not what the woman "should" have done. It was never stated that the woman in the story was single. Just that she was fired and is seeking $4 million. I don't know the story behind her pregnancy and, frankly, I don't care. The employer was under no obligation to keep her as an employee.
If you and Dark (or whomever) didn't want children, you shouldn't have been having sex. Your words. Deal with it.
Way to ignore the clause beginning with "which".

Of course it's unlikely, I was just putting possibilities out there. And for about the third time, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE EMPLOYER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPING THE WOMAN. I think they are completely within their rights here.

Fine - your jumping on Borg (who was arguing that the employer should not be responsible) gave me the impression otherwise....I probably should just avoid exchanges involving you and Borg.


I really hope that you don't think you're giving me some sort of advice that I can't figure out on my own, and I also hope that you're not suggesting that I'm spoiled.

I was spitting ideas - I wasn't talking about you personally.

Fine - your jumping on Borg (who was arguing that the employer should not be responsible) gave me the impression otherwise....I probably should just avoid exchanges involving you and Borg.
Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. :)

I was spitting ideas - I wasn't talking about you personally.
That's what I thought. I was just making sure.

Red herring?
As i assumed. Zero. You value your opinion over others experience. Imagine that.

I dont think wanting to have a career and a family makes a woman spoiled.

By yourself? Maybe "spoiled" is not the right term, but perhaps a combination of selfish and unrealistic. To have a great family, you have to spend time with them. To have a great career, you have to spend time on it. To have good health (one of the items I mentioned but you left out of your response), you have to spend time on it. You're going to end up sacrificing one of those things if you try to do it on your own.

It's unrealistic cause if you believe you can accomplish all of those things by yourself. It's selfish because your children will suffer no matter which area you sacrifice.


Nor do I think women need a hubby to do this either. There are a lot of women who make it on there own.

I'm not saying they can't "make it." I'm just saying they aren't going to be successful in whichever area they end up sacrificing. I.e. you can scrape by but it's more likely-than-not going to be an inferior lifestyle.

I agree that you can't be with a "bad boy" and expect the American Dream.

Respect should be a 2 way street.

Agreed.

I'm not saying they can't "make it." I'm just saying they aren't going to be successful in whichever area they end up sacrificing. I.e. you can scrape by but it's more likely-than-not going to be an inferior lifestyle.
Tell that to Angelina Jolie. :thumbs:

Of course in general I agree with you, but if you're rich and/or have a very flexible career you can certainly be a single mom and have a good lifestyle. For example, there are some mothers who work from home and make enough money to support their family while still spending time with their children. Other careers are also good for mothers... I want to be a college professor, and that would mean I'd be home when my children are on vacation from school and I could have at least some ability to dictate my work hours.

To have a great family, you have to spend time with them. To have a great career, you have to spend time on it.

It's selfish because your children will suffer no matter which area you sacrifice.

You seem to be giving men a pass here, Leper. How many men don't spend time with their families in order to pursue their careers, and instead leave the job of raising children to their mates (who often work outside the home as well)? Don't the children in such families suffer too? Why do you single out women in this argument? It takes two people to create a child; why are women the ones who are punished (or labeled "selfish") when most men do next to nothing in terms of taking care of their children?