Re: Propriety: New Twist on Professionalism & Secretaries Day

[Andrea Ridgley <ridgley -at- OMTOOL -dot- COM>]

I fail to see precaution as discrimination.   When your children walk to
school, don't you tell them not to talk to strangers for the sake of
their own safety?  If so, you are now discriminative.

>-----Original Message-----
>From:  Hope Cascio [SMTP:hope -dot- d -dot- cascio -at- US -dot- ARTHURANDERSEN -dot- COM]
>Sent:  Tuesday, April 28, 1998 3:23 PM
>To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject:       Re: Propriety: New Twist on Professionalism & Secretaries Day
>
>His "precaution" is still discriminatory.  What if he'd been sued in the
>past because a Gentile employee assaulted a Jewish employee, and now, as a
>"precaution," he segregated his employees in this way?  I don't agree with
>frivolous lawsuits, I'm sorry he was the victim of one, but that does not
>give him license to hurt his employees professionally to protect himself
>from further litigation.  In Phyllis' position, I would certainly call out
>the EEO.
>
>Hope Cascio
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>To:     Hope D. Cascio, TECHWR-L @ LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU
>cc:
>From:   ridgley -at- omtool -dot- com
>Date:   04/28/98 03:22 PM
>Subject:  RE: Propriety: New Twist on Professionalism & Secretaries Day
>___________________________________________________________________________
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>I wouldn't be so quick to alert the EEO!  As Phyllis mentioned "HE (the
>pres is male) does live his life very carefully because
>of previous frivolous lawsuits in previous companies (not against him)."
>What if the Pres is actually and sincerely concerned about the welfare
>of female employees in the midst of male employees? (It could happen.) I
>believe in learning from other people's experiences and taking the
>necessary precautions instead of saying "it can't happen to me."
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:    Hope Cascio [SMTP:hope -dot- d -dot- cascio -at- US -dot- ARTHURANDERSEN -dot- COM]
>>Sent:    Tuesday, April 28, 1998 2:29 PM
>>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>>Subject: Propriety: New Twist on Professionalism & Secretaries Day
>>
>>This is sex discrimination, because the president is affecting how you do
>>your work based on your gender. I would tell the president that the
>current
>>policy prevents you from doing you work to the best of your ability (as it
>>does) and that if the policy is not rescinded, you'll take it to the EEO
>>(or equivalent government office protecting against discrimination in the
>>workplace.)
>>Hope Cascio
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________________
>_
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>
>>To:     TECHWR-L @ LISTSERV.OKSTATE.EDU
>>cc:      (bcc: Hope D. Cascio)
>>From:   PPalmer -at- SPHERECOM -dot- COM
>>Date:   04/28/98 01:34 PM
>>Subject:  Propriety: New Twist on Professionalism & Secretaries Day
>>__________________________________________________________________________
>_
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Here's my question for you wise folks:
>>Scenario:  I need to go to several beta sites and new installations for
>>training issues and installation documentation development.  The
>>'president' of our small company is adamant against males and females
>>traveling together (large group going to same site, only one female;
>>getting a ride to the airport with colleague, etc.) even for a working
>>lunch.  I say I can't live like that.  I need the information from the
>>site and I need to be with the developers as they analyze what's going
>>on...
>>What do you do?
>>Thanks for your discussion of this topic.
>>Phyllis
>~
>>
>~
>>
>>
>
>
>