Free Women's Newsletter!

Get these great stories sent directly to your email!

email See more free newsletters on the subscribe page.

Type your email address:

Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.

Quizzes
Wedding Guide:
Get advice on planning your big day with our wedding guide
Car Names Hangman:
Try our FREE ArcaMax Car Name Hangman Game
 
The Funnies:
Get free jokes, comics, and more! See them all on
our funnies page
Weather:
Accurate national, regional, and local forecasts on the weather page

Justice Dept. settles pregnancy case

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The U.S. Justice Department and the Bryan County, Okla., Sheriff's Department reached a settlement in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, the department said.

The complaint alleged the sheriff engaged in employment discrimination against women by requiring the reassignment of female officers working in the jail to administrative duties when they were pregnant, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday in a news release. Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion or sex, including pregnancy.

The consent decree, which still needs court approval, bars the sheriff from discriminating against any employee or applicant of the Bryan County Sheriff's Office, including the jail, on the basis of sex and pregnancy, the Justice Department said. The consent decree also requires the sheriff to implement a policy prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and to provide mandatory training on the policy.



Copyright 2009 by United Press International

This news arrived on: 06/17/2009
Share this Story
Digg   del.icio.us   Yahoo   Facebook   Google   

Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment


Rate This Story:

Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad



Thank you for your input.


Posted Comments:

06-24-2009 17:52
E.V.Kennedy wrote:

Dicrimination?

This is ridiculous in my opinion. The sheriff knows that the pregnant employee is not only risking herself, but her unborn child. Also, when the pregnancy is advanced, you don't have the balance and agility that might be reqired in an emergency. The employee should be glad to have these protective polocies in place.

Is it possible that this was a frivilous, money-grubbing lawsuit?




Comment archive | Comment FAQ's

Post Comment::

Author:
Subject:



Recent archives Featured news

View Women ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive

Featured Channel: Politics

The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ...