Why is it discrimination for an employer to fire a pregnant woman?

Question

...especially if her absence causes major disruptions and/or problems for her employer...?

Answer 1

Because pregnancy doesn't hinder a woman's ability to work, and firing them on the basis of their choice to reproduce is reprehensible.

Answer 2

Because it's the thought of her not being able to do her job properly just because she's pregnant. The same way some people get fired for being a different race than the employer, or gay, for the exact same reason.

Usually if a woman gets pregnant, she goes on maternity leave.

Answer 3

Think of it as any other form of medical leave, the person is considered temporarily disabled. It is also discrimination because you can only fire one gender for pregnancy. Historically jobs once fired women if they became pregnant and it was unbecoming their role (such as a teacher in a catholic school)

Answer 4

It is discrimination because you are firing them for something that is non-work related that they have done, and considering this is most likely not illegal, there would be no reasonable explination for firing them. Ofering them a break if the job requires hard labour would be fine, and n fact reccomended, but other than that it is discrimination against that persons choice.

Answer 5

Because the law protects women on the grounds that having a baby is a natural process which is part of normal life. Except in small businesses, where you can show keeping the job open will cause excessive hardship, you have to keep their job available; though you can hire a temp to fill in for them.

Answer 6

o.k., this appears like a topic the place you will get a lawyer in touch. regardless of the reality that the reason at the back of firing your sister replaced into "intense go away", as they reported, the evidence leads in direction of her being fired simply by her pregnant state. you would be waiting to get a loose consultation with a lawyer (examine the telephone e book). If the lawyer feels that it could be priceless to press expenditures, then I actual sense such as you may. bearing directly to her modern-day business corporation, she shouldn't return in the event that they provide. they'll in all probability carry not undemanding emotions. the terrific element right this is justice and then shifting on. good success!!!

Answer 7

In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an amendment to the sex discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 2002, California's Paid Family Leave (PFL) insurance program, also known as the Family Temporary Disability Insurance (FTDI) program, extended unemployment disability compensation to cover individuals who take time off of work to bond with a new minor child. PFL covers employees who take time off to bond with their own child or their registered domestic partner's child, or a child placed for adoption or foster-care with them or their domestic partner.

Answer 8

Because in certain states (mine is one of them), the act of being pregnant is a disability. (Aflac (the national insurance company with the little duck) even considers it to be one).
Since the Ada (americans with disabilities act) was passed into law, it is against the law to discriminate gainst people with disabilities!

Answer 9

That depends on if she is still capable of doing her job. If she is capable, then it's discrimination because the only reason they fired her was because they fired her. If she was no longer capable of doing her job, then it wouldn't be discrimination because when she applied, she knew the tasks she would be asked to complete and now she can no longer complete them.

Answer 10

its only discrimation if they were fired BECAUSE they were pregnant..

if they did something that was against policy [rules] than its no longer discrimination..

hope that helps = ]