New mom's bias suit has stirred up hornet's nest in Capitol

Sacramento Bee ^ | February 27, 2003 | Marjie Lundstrom

[concentric circles]

Unless they all sit down and settle this thing soon, a case will go to trial Monday that pits a 41-year-old Sacramento woman against the state of California. On the surface, the case of Pamela "P.J." Harper vs. the California State Assembly is a discrimination lawsuit brought by the former director of the Legislative Travel Office, who says she was squeezed out of her $75,348-a-year job after returning to work from a 5 1/2 -month maternity leave.

[concentric circles]

Don't you love the hypocracy of this crowd! First it's all for the mothers, the children, and the families; but if it's inconvenient then it's o.k. to stab them in the back!

[Grim]

This case is bizarre for a number of reasons. Firstly, any California employer who tried this stunt would be crucified in public. Of course, our masters don't think the laws they pass apply to themselves.

Secondly, why on earth did they make her walk 10 minutes away to express milk? Did somebody in the office think they would get cooties?

Thirdly, it's hard to believe it took her over an hour to do this. It should only take a few minutes.

Finally, the author's right in that any ordinary citizen employer doesn't have unlimited funds to litigate such a silly suit. How typical the state legislature would spend millions and make the woman miserable. In fact, many labor-based complaints are so expensive to defend it's often infinitely easier just to pay the da**ed fine and be done with it.

Legislators should be FORCED to live under the crappy laws they inflict on the rest of us just so they have some idea of the misery they cause. If they ever came down out of their ivory tower for 5 minutes, business law would be completely different in California.

[pabianice]

"The reason they've got nothing but money is because it's yours and mine."

And herein is the prime reason why the Left must be defunded!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[Verginius Rufus]

I wonder if Jon Waldie is related to old Nixon enemy Jerome Waldie.

[Vineyard]

And let us also not forget that the Assembly is VERY HEAVILY Democrap... so the Democraps, who foist off heavy-handed laws upon the private businesses - seem to not want to make reasonable accomodations to a State employee who works for them!!!

Wow ... but then look at the way Hillary and Bill always treated their own "hired help" ..... with nothing but contempt!

Mike

[Owatamla]

According to documents, including e-mail obtained by the defense, state officials began keeping book on Harper the very day she returned to work on March 15, 2001. The surveillance logs, which Harper knew nothing about, detailed the time she spent each day, pumping her breast milk in a special room at the Capitol or breast-feeding her baby at a nearby child-care center.


Doing the things she should be doing at home like raising her child instead of sending them to child care

[hocndoc]

Wrong. She was doing the things she should have been doing.
Mothers have always worked while taking care of kids, sharing babysitting.

The mother is not the one who did wrong,here. As some have said, the legislators wrote the laws, they should have to follow them. (Actually, it's probably career bureaucrats who did both.)

[Dianna]

The mother is not the one who did wrong,here. As some have said, the legislators wrote the laws, they should have to follow them. (Actually, it's probably career bureaucrats who did both.)

I absolutely agree that the legislature should be held to the laws they passed for us. Perhaps they will now acknowledge how difficult these demands can be on private businesses who don't have access to the unlimited deep pockets of the tax payers.

[CaptainK]

It could have been handled better. Another waste of taxpayer money. She will sue and win a big lawsuit.

Nice touch though, on the part of the male supervisor, getting the woman's female underling to do all the dirty work. So much for sisterhood on the job.

[Owatamla]

Mothers have always worked while taking care of kids, sharing babysitting.

Wromg. Not all mothers. Mine was home to raise five and did not expect Government or taxpayers to pay for it.

I will note for your sake however that I realize we do live in different times and many spouses give up on there kids and commitment to one another. For me 22 years of a great marriage, and expecting many more.

My wife did raise our chldren at home while I worked and yes we may not have had everything we wanted, but they were raised without any help from your tax dollars or Government intervention.

[hocndoc]

How is this woman expecting you tax money? She wanted to remain at her tax-paying job. (I imagine a high rate, too.)

There's more than one way to do things.

I stayed home while I nursed mine, but went to school when they were older. I did take some night classes when my husband could be home with the kids after the second was born.
Moms have always worked. I sewed, cooked bread for 3 families twice a week, and remodeled our house (and read and watched soap operas) when mine were little. Mothers used to garden, can, make their own cloth, candles, mattresses, etc. Or, they went off to the factory or market and left the kids with some sort of babysitter.


Beverly B. Nuckols, MD (Thank God,I'll have been Mrs. Larry E Nuckols for 29 years on April 1st!)

[hocndoc]

I'll bet you hit the wrong button, I do that all the time. You wrote,

"Re: New mom's bias suit has stirred up hornet's nest in Capitol
From Owatamla | 03/02/2003 10:30 PM CST new

What is clear is that the state may be on the hook for as much as $3 million. Taxpayers money?

In your own words "Choice is the # 1 killer in the US."

I do not mean to be disrespectful to you maam and you should be proud for what you have accomplished in your marriage and raising your children. My mother worked at Christmas time as well to provide that for us and I agree she certainly sewed etc.

Unfortunately they do pass laws that are bad all of the time. I just do not agree that businesses should have to foot the bill for people deciding to have children.Of course if you believe they should that's fine but we all pay for it through higher costs.

I believe parenting should be a full time focus and not part-time and that it is more important than any amount of money. If your goal in life is to be rich at your childrens expense then don't have any.

For myself I found that money was not the answer to my quest in life, but trying to be a better person is.

I do realize how different it is now though in that there are so many unwed spouses with children trying to make ends meet. I know they do not have the support that you and I had, but many made bad choices!"

You're mixing a lot of issues.
Are fathers "part time"?

If we're rich, it's because of my husband, I hit the market at the wrong time.

This woman has nothing to do with single parents who depend on the state for child care to make ends meet, except that she had a job working for the state. They made a contract with her and broke it.

Maybe California needs more law-suit reform.

Freepers, I'm concerned about the tone of so many of our posts: it's as though we're here to gossip and look down on others. Why do we all continue to make judgements about individuals we don't know?