• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman fired for having heavy periods

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, really. Seems it's "unclear" whether menstruation is strictly a "female" matter. Unclear to whom? The federal government.

[FONT=&quot]Under federal law, it’s unclear whether menstruation is strictly a "female" matter, so now the courts must debate whether menstruation-based discrimination is unconstitutional.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The legal quandary comes from the case of Alisha Coleman, who’s suing theBobby Dodd Institute for workplace discrimination after her period leaked on two separate occasions and she was fired.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

link


So, now it has to be proven that menstruation is a female-specific matter.

Looks like we've fallen down the rabbit hole into bizarro world.
 
Men have suffered through women's menstrual cycles for years.
 
I'll respectfully stay out of this :mrgreen:
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, really. Seems it's "unclear" whether menstruation is strictly a "female" matter. Unclear to whom? The federal government.



link


So, now it has to be proven that menstruation is a female-specific matter.

Looks like we've fallen down the rabbit hole into bizarro world.
Click to expand...

I feel I have a right to have menstruation and girl that flaumt theirs are discriminatory. Should be punished.
 
Her periods weren't regular as she was pre-menopausal which does make this something more difficult for her to prepare for. I wonder if legally it would be better to attack this from a medical point of view rather than making it about sex.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, really. Seems it's "unclear" whether menstruation is strictly a "female" matter. Unclear to whom? The federal government.



link


So, now it has to be proven that menstruation is a female-specific matter.

Looks like we've fallen down the rabbit hole into bizarro world.
Click to expand...

Give what is going on with gender politics, the whole country seems to be on the rag.
 
Um --- her bodily fluids were "leaking" on chairs and on the carpet. That's pretty gross and I can see why they let her go. They can't have someone's bodily fluids dripping in random places where her coworkers might come in contact with it.
 
Just wondering how anyone feels about sitting on seeing a chair where some old guy with prostate issues has "dribbled" his bodily fluids?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, really. Seems it's "unclear" whether menstruation is strictly a "female" matter. Unclear to whom? The federal government.



link


So, now it has to be proven that menstruation is a female-specific matter.

Looks like we've fallen down the rabbit hole into bizarro world.
Click to expand...

In these times where gender is no longer just male and female, who knows how a court may rule on this.

As for me, it's pretty simple. It's a medical issue, that the company has probably stepped on their own air hose.
 
Parrish said:
Just wondering how anyone feels about sitting on seeing a chair where some old guy with prostate issues has "dribbled" his bodily fluids?
Click to expand...

The same, of course. It's nasty.
 
I think this case is actually a lot more reasonable than the article is making it out to be. And so was the court's decision.

The Court ruled that Coleman’s case was flawed because she failed to show that her male colleagues wouldn’t have been fired for the same reason. “According to the Court,” Law Newz elucidated, “we can’t just infer that menstruation is female; we’d have to show that if a man menstruated too much, that *he’d *have been able to keep his job.”
Click to expand...

She wasn't fired for having her period, she was fired for leaking bodily fluids all over the office multiple times. It's unhygienic and disgusting. And it would be just as unhygienic and disgusting if it was a man that was incontinent leaking pee all over the office.
 
molten_dragon said:
I think this case is actually a lot more reasonable than the article is making it out to be. And so was the court's decision.

She wasn't fired for having her period, she was fired for leaking bodily fluids all over the office multiple times. It's unhygienic and disgusting. And it would be just as unhygienic and disgusting if it was a man that was incontinent leaking pee all over the office.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Unless he had a medical issue. Like, for example... the very unpredictable bleeding that can happen in perimenopausal women, not just in terms of timing, but also in terms of severity. Some women have the heaviest bleeding of their lives at this point. And I hate to get TMI on you, but for women who bleed heavily, most well-known menstrual products are not good enough to cope with it and can be down for the count in under 2 hours. It's especially hard to plan for if you weren't always like that and have no way of foretelling that your periods are going to very suddenly get much heavier... and sometimes you don't even get any warning. Not all women have PMS.

This is why pretty much every woman has an embarrassing story from when she was a pubescent girl. It's not predictable, it's not consistent, and sometimes there is no warning. The same is true of perimenopausal women.

If a man had a very unpredictable medical issue like this, his employer is legally supposed to have some leniency and accommodation for him while he tries to figure out how to manage it. And there are many such issues. For example, age-related prostate issues -- not terribly dissimilar to age-related menstrual issues.

But for some reason no accommodation for her.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah. Unless he had a medical issue. Like, for example... the very unpredictable bleeding that can happen in perimenopausal women, not just in terms of timing, but also in terms of severity. Some women have the heaviest bleeding of their lives at this point. And I hate to get TMI on you, but for women who bleed heavily, most well-known menstrual products are not good enough to cope with it and can be down for the count in under 2 hours. It's especially hard to plan for if you weren't always like that and have no way of foretelling that your periods are going to very suddenly get much heavier... and sometimes you don't even get any warning. Not all women have PMS.

This is why pretty much every woman has an embarrassing story from when she was a pubescent girl. It's not predictable, it's not consistent, and sometimes there is no warning. The same is true of perimenopausal women.

If a man had a very unpredictable medical issue like this, his employer is legally supposed to have some leniency and accommodation for him while he tries to figure out how to manage it. And there are many such issues. For example, age-related prostate issues -- not terribly dissimilar to age-related menstrual issues.

But for some reason no accommodation for her.
Click to expand...

I think the key here is was she actually fired for a sexually/gender related reason. If it can be shown where a man leaked bodily fluids and the company did nothing, then there is a gender discrimination case there, which is what her suit is based upon. However, as noted by others this is not the only age based bodily using leakage out there, and not giving people who have these problems accomendations would be more an ADA issue than an gender discrimination issue. And the worse part is if this was the first time they ever had a bodily fluid issue, if a man was the next to have it and they did nothing then, they could point out that it was her case that caused them to change their policy. That I should why for such discrimination cases it has to be shown as a trend of behavior, not a single incident as this one seems to be.
 
maquiscat said:
I think the key here is was she actually fired for a sexually/gender related reason. If it can be shown where a man leaked bodily fluids and the company did nothing, then there is a gender discrimination case there, which is what her suit is based upon. However, as noted by others this is not the only age based bodily using leakage out there, and not giving people who have these problems accomendations would be more an ADA issue than an gender discrimination issue. And the worse part is if this was the first time they ever had a bodily fluid issue, if a man was the next to have it and they did nothing then, they could point out that it was her case that caused them to change their policy. That I should why for such discrimination cases it has to be shown as a trend of behavior, not a single incident as this one seems to be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. I think trying it on grounds of gender was definitely the weaker position they could have taken.

But ADA issues are protected as well, yes? So I would think there doesn't necessarily need to be proof of a trend?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah. Unless he had a medical issue. Like, for example... the very unpredictable bleeding that can happen in perimenopausal women, not just in terms of timing, but also in terms of severity. Some women have the heaviest bleeding of their lives at this point.
Click to expand...

What's your argument here? That a man wouldn't have been fired if he was incontinent and was leaking urine or feces on the carpet and furniture? Because I have trouble believing that and there's no evidence to support it.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
If a man had a very unpredictable medical issue like this, his employer is legally supposed to have some leniency and accommodation for him while he tries to figure out how to manage it. And there are many such issues. For example, age-related prostate issues -- not terribly dissimilar to age-related menstrual issues.
Click to expand...

Regardless, her employer followed the law as it exists. The ADA does not consider menopause a disability. Are you arguing that it is? If that's your argument she should be suing the federal government, not her employer.
 
The Bobby Dodd Institute is a job training/employment agency, and the woman had worked there as a "911 call taker" for nearly a decade.

From the ACLU:
“Employers have no business policing women’s bodies or their menstrual cycles,” said Andrea Young, ACLU of Georgia executive director. “Firing a woman for getting her period at work is offensive and an insult to every woman in the workplace. A heavy period is something nearly all women will experience, especially as they approach menopause, and Alisha was shamed, demeaned and fired for it. That’s wrong and illegal under federal law. We’re fighting back.”

“Federal law is supposed to protect women from being punished, harassed or fired because of their sex, and being fired for unexpectedly getting your period at work is the very essence of sex discrimination,” said Galen Sherwin, Senior Staff Attorney at the Women’s Rights Project of the ACLU. “This kind of blatant discrimination against women in the workplace is why the ACLU Women’s Rights Project was founded 45 years ago, and why the fight for gender equality must continue.” https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-appeals-case-georgia-woman-fired-getting-her-period-work
 
molten_dragon said:
What's your argument here? That a man wouldn't have been fired if he was incontinent and was leaking urine or feces on the carpet and furniture? Because I have trouble believing that and there's no evidence to support it.

Regardless, her employer followed the law as it exists. The ADA does not consider menopause a disability. Are you arguing that it is? If that's your argument she should be suing the federal government, not her employer.
Click to expand...

It really depends. Menopausal complications are common. I don't know her medical history.

But an emerging medical change -- complex or normal -- which a person had no way of foreseeing or preventing isn't something that should get you fired. Like I said, this is basically a rite of passage for pubescent girls. Shall we kick them out of school? Older women are obviously a bit better prepared, but some women don't get the easy road, and sometimes their preparation isn't enough for the chaotic reality that some of them get. If you've been a light, regular bleeder for 30 years, why the hell would you plan to suddenly turn into a heavy one who randomly gets your period 2 weeks earlier than normal? Answer is, you wouldn't. But that's what perimenopause can be like.

Reality is, carpets and seats go through all kinds of stuff. I guarantee you most seats in any given middle school have been bled on. I guarantee you someone has been sick on that carpet in that office. I guarantee you people have sweat in those chairs, and gotten snot on their keyboards.

Animals leak stuff. It's gross, but it's reality. That's why we clean. Because being an animal is gross.

Why is menstrual blood the only one of those many gross things that can get you fired?
 
molten_dragon said:
What's your argument here? That a man wouldn't have been fired if he was incontinent and was leaking urine or feces on the carpet and furniture? Because I have trouble believing that and there's no evidence to support it.



Regardless, her employer followed the law as it exists. The ADA does not consider menopause a disability. Are you arguing that it is? If that's your argument she should be suing the federal government, not her employer.
Click to expand...

Apparently, the law doesn't consider menopause strictly a female issue either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom