Re: Propriety: New Twist on Professionalism & Secretaries Day

[Roger Mallett <roger -at- CSICAL -dot- COM>]

And after the EEO left and ruined your employer, and destroyed his
business, you'd been on the street looking for another job.  Sounds like
a great solution to me!

>----------
>From:  Hope Cascio[SMTP:hope -dot- d -dot- cascio -at- US -dot- ARTHURANDERSEN -dot- COM]
>Sent:  Tuesday, April 28, 1998 12:23 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
>~
>>
>~
>>
>>
>
>~~~
>Check out topic summaries at
>http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/topics.htm
>
>
>