Great answer to a stupid question from a CNN reporter ...

[rn79870]

Even though the above is NOT correct - it is illegal - I will change my earlier advice slightly. Please ask your HR folks if you can say to a woman: "I note that you have said here that you have a special needs newborn? How do you plan to do the job that you are applying for here?"

Looking forward to your HR departments response on the above!

Z

My HR department says that this is an election issue, and campaigns are not governed by the laws an HR department is governed by.

But yes, if a potential employee volunteers information, the you may pursue how that information effects the job you are offering. For instance. "I'm getting married next month" opens the door to ask if they are planning a long honeymoon and whether she/he would need time off for that event. You are not free to ask if they are getting married next month if they don't raise the issue first.

[AZhitman]

Still not an appropriate question, and it still falls outside what an employer is allowed to base decisions on per Federal law.

By the way, in case you needed more evidence that you're wrong:

Unlawful Caregiver Stereotyping Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

In addition to prohibiting discrimination against a qualified worker because of his or her own disability, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination because of the disability of an individual with whom the worker has a relationship or association, such as a child, spouse, or parent. Under this provision, an employer may not treat a worker less favorably based on stereotypical assumptions about the worker’s ability to perform job duties satisfactorily while also providing care to a relative or other individual with a disability. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire a job applicant whose wife has a disability because the employer assumes that the applicant would have to use frequent leave and arrive late due to his responsibility to care for his wife.

For more information, see EEOC’s Questions and Answers About the Association Provision of the ADA at http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/association_ada.html.

[AZhitman]

An employer is interviewing applicants for a computer programmer position. The employer determines that one of the applicants, Arnold, is the best qualified, but is reluctant to hire him because he disclosed during the interview that he is a divorced father and has sole custody of his son, who has a disability. Because the employer concludes that Arnold's caregiving responsibilities for a person with a disability may have a negative effect on his attendance and work performance, it decides to offer the position to the second best qualified candidate, Fred, and encourages Arnold to apply for any future openings if his caregiving responsibilities change. Under the circumstances, the employer has violated the ADA by refusing to hire Arnold because of his association with an individual with a disability.

Care to continue?

Reference: 29 U.S.C. § 1630.8 (ADA makes it unlawful for employer to “deny equal jobs or benefits to, or otherwise discriminate against,” a worker based on his or her association with an individual with a disability)

Abdel-Khalke v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 97 CIV 4514 JGK, 1999 WL 190790 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 1999) (issues of fact regarding whether employer refused to hire applicant because of concern that she would take time off to care for her child with a disability).

Back, 365 F.3d at 115 (employer told employee that it was “not possible for [her] to be a good mother and have this job”);

Trezza v. Hartford, Inc., No. 98 CIV. 2205 (MBM), 1998 WL 912101, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 1998) (employer remarked to employee that, in attempting to balance career and motherhood, “I don’t see how you can do either job well”)

[Soravia]

Let's sue all those liberal media people and the pundits. We could make enough money to donate to a foundation for children with down syndrome.

[rn79870]

Sez who? Do you have a reference/link to a Federal law that says the EEOC laws are limited in this manner?

More rationalizations for illegal questions, as far as I can see!

Z

Ask and you shall receive.

USCode Title VII, (1964 as amended) SEC. 2000. [Section 701] f) The term ``employee'' means an individual employed by an employer,except that the term ``employee'' shall not include any person elected topublic office in any State or political subdivision of any State by thequalified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be onsuch officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making levelor an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutionalor legal powers of the office.

Thank you HR department. A candidate is not an employee (or a potential employee)

/issue

Now, will Ms. Palin please answer the question.

[AZhitman]

If it's not a question you'd be legally asking a potential employee (YOUR example, not mine), you have no grounds to ask it of an elected official.

Better yet, keep pounding on it. I like this color on you guys.

[rn79870]

An employer is interviewing applicants for a computer programmer position. The employer determines that one of the applicants, Arnold, is the best qualified, but is reluctant to hire him because he disclosed during the interview that he is a divorced father and has sole custody of his son, who has a disability. Because the employer concludes that Arnold's caregiving responsibilities for a person with a disability may have a negative effect on his attendance and work performance, it decides to offer the position to the second best qualified candidate, Fred, and encourages Arnold to apply for any future openings if his caregiving responsibilities change. Under the circumstances, the employer has violated the ADA by refusing to hire Arnold because of his association with an individual with a disability.

Care to continue?

Reference: 29 U.S.C. § 1630.8 (ADA makes it unlawful for employer to “deny equal jobs or benefits to, or otherwise discriminate against,” a worker based on his or her association with an individual with a disability)

Abdel-Khalke v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 97 CIV 4514 JGK, 1999 WL 190790 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 1999) (issues of fact regarding whether employer refused to hire applicant because of concern that she would take time off to care for her child with a disability).

Back, 365 F.3d at 115 (employer told employee that it was “not possible for [her] to be a good mother and have this job”);

Trezza v. Hartford, Inc., No. 98 CIV. 2205 (MBM), 1998 WL 912101, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 1998) (employer remarked to employee that, in attempting to balance career and motherhood, “I don’t see how you can do either job well”)

Totally different situation. We're not talking about refusing to hire, we're talking about an issue raised by the candidate.Oh, and by the way, Title VII doesn't apply to candidates, (or elected officials) so all this is moot. (See above post.)

[AZhitman]

If you were an employer, you'd want to know if a potential employee would have other responsibilities that would take her away from the job you were hiring her for wouldn't you?

This was your original entry in the thread, and the answer is...

Yes. If it's outside employment, volunteer commitments, hobbies, etc.

Health-related, family-related, anything covered under ADA, HIPAA and EEOC, nope.

[AZhitman]

These kinds of questions are asked to plant doubt among voters. Do you think the people who ask that question are really worried about the treatment of her children? NOPE! They are doing it for their own personal agenda.

Precisely.

[rn79870]

If it's not a question you'd be legally asking a potential employee (YOUR example, not mine), you have no grounds to ask it of an elected official.

Better yet, keep pounding on it. I like this color on you guys.

Unfortunately, the law (Title VII, section 2000) specifically excludes candidates from it's provision. I have to wonder what they were thinking when they wrote it other than questions are a necessary tool for a voter to have. Apparently ALL questions are fair game for a politician. When you think about it, that's a pretty good law.

[AZhitman]

I'd ask who is going to raise Obama's special needs children, but that would be a tacky and inappropriate move... I'll leave it for wingFeather to ask.

JFWY wing, don't shoot me.

[szh]

Ask and you shall receive.

USCode Title VII, (1964 as amended) SEC. 2000. [Section 701] f) The term ``employee'' means an individual employed by an employer,except that the term ``employee'' shall not include any person elected topublic office in any State or political subdivision of any State by thequalified voters thereof, or any person chosen by such officer to be onsuch officer's personal staff, or an appointee on the policy making levelor an immediate adviser with respect to the exercise of the constitutionalor legal powers of the office.

Thank you HR department. A candidate is not an employee (or a potential employee)

Sorry, that is the definition of an employee from an unrelated law. Has nothing to do with the EEOC laws being limited in that they can be asked of political candidates!

Z

[rn79870]

Nice try Z. Explain why there has never been a single example of an EEOC violation with respect to an candidate and a campaign.

Thanks.

[dusred]

What difference does it make? The people are hiring this person to be their president or VP.

Besides that your Jesus already told you to back off of the personal lives in these matters.

[AZhitman]

Nice try Z. Explain why there has never been a single example of an EEOC violation with respect to an candidate and a campaign.

Thanks.

If there was a "duh" smiley, it'd be perfect here.

Because these are uncharted waters. The first female VP candidate with youngsters, perhaps?

I reiterate my position that it's tacky and hypocritical to even take this path.

Interestingly, do you know how much time the current VP dedicates to the job? How about the guy before him? They have hobbies, responsibilities, illnesses that impact their duties?

You don't know, do you. Because you never asked. Because they were men.

Anything to win tho, right?

[rn79870]

If there was a "duh" smiley, it'd be perfect here.

Because these are uncharted waters. The first female VP candidate with youngsters, perhaps?

I reiterate my position that it's tacky and hypocritical to even take this path.

Interestingly, do you know how much time the current VP dedicates to the job? How about the guy before him? They have hobbies, responsibilities, illnesses that impact their duties?

You don't know, do you. Because you never asked. Because they were men.

Anything to win tho, right?

Do you really think that with the ubiquitous amount of scandal Palin brings to the table anyone is concerned about her gender???? If you like her, great. The dems are certainly pleased with McCain's choice.

Oh, and there are many female public office holders who apparently didn't file a suit when they ran for office.

[AZhitman]

You asked, I answered.

You're calling for her resignation, so I'm not convinced you're that "pleased" with it.

As I said, how much time does the current VP dedicates to the job? How about the guy before him? They have hobbies, responsibilities, illnesses that impact their duties?

Not sure what you're getting at with that last one.

[HashiriyaS14]

You're calling for her resignation, so I'm not convinced you're that "pleased" with it.

I know this wasn't directed at me in the least, but I'll go on the record as saying I am definitely *not* gunning for her resignation.

I still uphold that this will be a net positive for the Democrats, although anything is possible. Dem campaign strategists just need to focus on her social stances and I believe that will effectively disqualify the ticket to many many American voters.

This is a much easier job than trying to box in, say, Tom Ridge or Mitt Romney.

[srellim234]

For those above who are asking how she deals with the child, the V.P. gets over $200,000 a year in salary. I have no idea if Alaska has a pension for past governors but they might. I'm guessing her husband will continue to work and make money. Add that to the fact that someone like a Carly Fiorina might donate daycare and it will be no problem making sure that child has a 24/7 nanny to supplement "Mommy-time.". Heck, the Republicans are falling all over themselves about Palin to the point that they might even pass a hat around Capitol Hill to pay for the kid's care.

Taking care of the child should be the least of anyone's worries. Let the mother of the child worry about it.

[rn79870]

Either that or the taxpayers will foot the bill as she adds one nanny to her staff.

[HashiriyaS14]

For those above who are asking how she deals with the child, the V.P. gets over $200,000 a year in salary. I have no idea if Alaska has a pension for past governors but they might. I'm guessing her husband will continue to work and make money. Add that to the fact that someone like a Carly Fiorina might donate daycare and it will be no problem making sure that child has a 24/7 nanny to supplement "Mommy-time.". Heck, the Republicans are falling all over themselves about Palin to the point that they might even pass a hat around Capitol Hill to pay for the kid's care.

Taking care of the child should be the least of anyone's worries. Let the mother of the child worry about it.

I agree, this is a stupid immaterial point. It's not like they're broke, the kids will be just fine.

Why is anyone concentrating on this again?

[dusred]

Either that or the taxpayers will foot the bill as she adds one nanny to her staff.

So what's your point?

[AZhitman]

Either that or the taxpayers will foot the bill as she adds one nanny to her staff.

More tacky and baseless mudslinging.

Since when do the taxpayers [directly] foot the bill for such things?

Hash and Steve nailed it - It's her responsibility to worry about. Take care of your own kids and she can take care of hers.

[szh]

Either that or the taxpayers will foot the bill as she adds one nanny to her staff.

Baseless crap slinging against Palin.

Z

[themadscientist]

I think the mysogonistic BS the dems are throwing out there is just going to hurt them. To ask these sorts of questions just shows how little they think of women I wonder what the women democrats think privately as they watch their party go after her being a woman. It must make them wonder what they signed on for.

[rn79870]

Oh my, what's the world thinking now.....

What Palin says about McCain By Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera's Senior Political Analyst, in Washington If selecting a running mate is a real test of a presidential candidate's judgment, then John McCain's decision to name Sarah Palin as his choice reveals a poor sense of astuteness and serves to underline his desperate political expediency. Beyond the much taunted image of a maverick, his critics argue McCain's decision has once again exposed his opportunistic tendencies. They draw an unflattering profile of a spoiled son of a Navy admiral who misused the good name of his political guru and predecessor in the Senate, the late Barry Goldwater, and who callously left his first wife and children to marry into a $100 million fortune. And this time, by choosing Palin, he betrayed all of that which he preached over the last 18 months - even 18 years.

"Barack Obama can start writing his inauguration speech," wrote me an informed friend the night McCain held his first appearance with Governor Palin. I am not sure I would go that far.

But I am no longer sceptical about an Obama victory in light of McCain's decision to offer the vice presidency to the unknown and inexperienced governor of Alaska merely because she is a conservative woman.

If the McCain-Palin list survives the next two months with no dramatic surprises, the Republican nominee will suffer in the polls because of his hasty decision

The world sees it but the reps don't....oh well.

http://english.aljazeera.net/f....html

[themadscientist]

Ah yes that great American news outlet AlJezzera. What was the three day jihad forecast?

[rn79870]

Well, you said it was the dems saying those things, and I show you it's the world and you complain. Go figure.

[AZhitman]

Well, you said it was the dems saying those things, and I show you it's the world and you complain. Go figure.

Yeah. They're REAL sensitive to women.

Ask Bishara how the hunt for the guys who executed those women in Pakistan is going.

Who gives a ratsass what "the world" thinks? Of COURSE the ME is going to oppose anything and everything GOP. I'm not convinced he knows much anyway - He doesn't even give ONE reason why he thinks this reflects poorly on McCain.

Hope they don't lop HIS head off for crappy journalism.

[rn79870]

I was trying to point out to tms that it is the media who is having a field day with Palin. The same media that's digging up all the stories about her abuse of power and even, unfairly, her family problems. It isn't the dems. I pointed out a foreigh media source that is obviously not rep/dem that also finds fault with Palin.

At least one poster completely missed this point instead, referring to a jihad.