Babies, Just Another 'Temporary Disability'
The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for #Pregnant Workers to Prove #Discrimination http://t.co/kqjp1cRQ7w
— What's My Fertility? (@PlanMyFertility) April 13, 2015
London-based Goldman Sachs exec Sonia Pereiro-Mendez just won a hefty $1.5 million in an out-of-court settlement simply by claiming that her employer discriminated against her pregnant and lactating body:
Pereiro-Mendez said senior management made sexist comments about her childcare arrangements and underpaid her by £1.4m ($2.1m) over a four year period following her pregnancy. At one point, she breastfed in a car when returning for a meeting whilst still on maternity leave. Such was the sexism that Pereiro-Mendez was allegedly able to make covert films of Goldman staff incriminating themselves.
There's a reason the financial firm settled out of court for the ghastly sum. Firstly, the fees associated with taking the case to court would have cost far more in the long run. Secondly, some boss was stupid enough to allow her to attend a meeting while on leave (a huge HR no-no) and thirdly, she caught someone on tape essentially calling her a bad mother.
And therein lies the rub. Thanks to contemporary "choice" feminism, as in "because I'm a woman, any choice I make is a feminist choice subject to judgment based on my gender," it can be just as sexist to assume a woman will have a child as it is to mock her mothering skills. Not that feminists are huge advocates of child-bearing. Praised as a huge victory for pregnant career women, the Supreme Court is now firmly defining pregnancy as a "temporary disability" that should be accommodated as such in the workplace. Just as babies have become fetuses, pregnancy is just a temporary medical setback akin to an off-the-job injury. Orwellian enough for you?