Supreme Court Votes Against Redressing Gender Discrimination In The Workplace

[rd_kent]

Here's the link: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/18/scotus-maternity/

I am of the opinion that women who choose to have a child should have their jobs protected until they return to work. However, I do not agree that they are considered "temporarily disabled" and are categorized the same as someone who say, had an accident and got hurt. The person who has an accident and cannot work should have additional protections.
As for the SCOTUS ruling, these women should have worked additional time to make up for the time lost while on maternity leave if they wanted to have the same retirement check as those who worked the entire time.
I guess I'm saying that if we (and I do) agree that deciding to have a child should be up to the woman and is a choice, then why are we providing the same protections as those who do not have a choice?

[elleng]

1. Bad headline, imo.

'In the maternity case, Souter wrote for the majority in overturning a lower court ruling that said the decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions.

Four AT&T employees, including Noreen Hulteen, who took maternity leave between 1968 and 1976, sued the company to get that leave time credited toward their pensions. At the time, the company used to count pregnancy leave as "personal" and said the time out of work did not count toward seniority for pension purposes.

But it was not until 1979 that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which barred companies from treating pregnancy differently from other disability leaves in determining pensions, went into effect.

"A seniority system does not necessarily violate the statute when it gives current effect to such rules that operated before the PDA," Souter wrote.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051800966_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009051801430