NAOSMMs, A recent LSI feature editorial in "Speaking of Safety" dealt with this issue.=A0 One of the key points is that the Supremes (Court not singers) hav e ruled.=A0 In the Johnson Controls case, the US Supreme Court decided it was the employers responsibility to protect both the mother and the unborn child by creating a workplace that is safe for both and discriminates against neither. Here's the citation: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol =187 This is one of the reasons why NAOSMM and other Professional Organizations need an active EHS committee to have a clear organizational statement on thi s issue.=A0 Regards, ... Jim In a message dated 11/12/2005 1:01:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, naosmm-request**At_Symbol_Here**mailman.rice.edu writes: > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:05:57 -0600 > From: "Stratmann, Shawn W"> Subject: [NAOSMM] Pregnancy policy > To: > > We have just established a pregnancy policy that no one can work in the > lab if she is pregnant due to the exposure to volatile chemicals. With > this I have already had one adjunct state that this is discrimination to > women and if she was pregnant she would sue. We look at it as protecting > the mother and unborn child but she did not see it that way and claims > that no other institution that she has worked at or knows of has such a > policy. I know there is such a policy in industrial labs but I was > wondering just how educational institutions deal with pregnant women? > > Shawn W. Stratman > Laboratory Associate > McKendree College ************************************ James A. Kaufman, Ph.D. President/CEO The Laboratory Safety Institute (LSI) Safety in Science and Science Education 192 Worcester Road, Natick, MA 01760 508-647-1900 Fax: 508-647-0062 Cell: 508-574-6264 Email: jimkaufman**At_Symbol_Here**labsafety.org Web Site: http://www.labsafety.org *************************************
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post