Saturday, August 29, 2009

Breastfeeding - A Good Way to Get Fired?

It has been a win some/lose some week for breastfeeding moms who work.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission ruled (CFEHC) that a woman cannot be fired for breastfeeding during break time. Marina Chavez, a cashier at Acosta Tacos in Los Angeles, was fired from her job when her manager discovered she had been using her breaks to breastfeed her premature baby. When manager Jaime Acosta discovered that Chavez's boyfriend had been bringing the 4-week-old baby to the restaurant so Chavez could nurse the child in the car, Acosta told her she could not come back to work until she stopped nursing her baby. When she stated that she could not wait that long to return to work because the family needed the money, Acosta fired her. The CFEHC ruled that breastfeeding on one's own time (as the break is considered to be) is protected under California law. Acosta Tacos was ordered to pay Chavez $41k and pay a fine to the state of $5k.

At least one state got it right. Unfortunately, it would seem that another state got it wrong.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Totes/Isotoner Corporation was lawful in firing LaNisa Allen from her job for taking unauthorized breaks in order to pump milk. According to Ms. Allen, she was told she could pump during her lunch break, more than 5 hours after last nursing her then 4-month old son. When she waited the 5 hours, she found that her breasts would hurt and she would leak milk. After noticing that other workers took unauthorized breaks to use the restroom and have a cigarette, she began taking a break at 10am in order to pump. When her supervisors discovered this, they fired her for taking unauthorized breaks. Ms. Allen filed suit, claiming she had been discriminated against. The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed.

Really, how is this anything but discrimination? Many lactating woman cannot just "hold it" for 5+ hours without suffering from pain and engorgement, at the very least. Not allowing an engorged woman to empty her breasts can lead to blocked ducts and mastitis, a serious breast infection. Would the Ohio court have ruled it was ok for the Totes/Isotoner corporation to fire someone with diabetes if they took "unauthorized breaks" to check their blood sugar and take insulin? Or how about if they fired someone with bladder issues who had to use the restroom more often than once every 5 hours? As it is, according to Ms. Allen, co-workers took unauthorized breaks to smoke and use the bathroom - why was she singled out and what was lawful about that?

To make things even worse, Totes/Isotoner touts their Comfort for a Cure Campaign to raise money for the breast cancer research. Yep, the very same body part that produces breastmilk. By the way, did you know that breastfeeding has been found to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer? So it would seem that Totes/Isotoner only cares about finding a cure, but not supporting the prevention of breast cancer.

Yeah. You can send those emails to customeraffairs@totes.com.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Protecting the United States

Having been subjected to the abject cheesiness and mind-blowing silliness of Indian mainstream cinema while growing up, there is a part of me that understands why Homeland Security might see Bollywood as a threat. But, come on, did they really have to detain Bollywood icon and superstar Shah Rukh Khan at Newark airport for "secondary questioning" for two hours? I mean, was he threatening to start a non-sequitur, perfectly choreographed and lip-synced dance sequence or something?

According to Khan, his only possible crime was having the last name "Khan." I guess having the name Khan might be construed as sign of a possible threat, you know, if you were Captain Kirk or something. But guys, this is Shah Rukh Khan! All Homeland Security had to do was google the man's name to know who he is and what he looks like. Hell, they could have just gone out and asked some of the cab drivers waiting outside the airport to ID the man!

I'm not saying that an actor - any actor - is above the law or rules and regulations. However, it is a little scary when the Department of Homeland Security's information gathering is so poor that they can't correctly identify the biggest actor in India - especially in less than two hours.

Epic fail guys.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Back on the Grid

Like a lot of women who opt for a homebirth, I did not choose to let my mainstream ob/gyn provider know that I was leaving that practice for the rest of the pregnancy and the birth, instead opting to "go off the grid" quietly by not scheduling another appointment. My last prenatal appointment with the practice was at 18 weeks. As such, I expected to get some questions when I showed back up at the practice last week with a two-week old baby and case of mastitis. However, I must say, I was a little surprised at some of the questions I got.

The nurse in the office was a little surprised to learn that we had delivered our son at home without assistance. But what seemed to really surprise her was the fact that the homebirth midwife sewed up the 2nd degree tear that I had; her facial expression and tone of voice suggested that she wasn't aware that direct-entry midwives knew how to do such things. The doctor who examined me also had some questions, such as whether I had received any prenatal care from the midwives (um, yes - I received excellent prenatal care from the midwife, as a matter of fact) and whether I was receiving any postpartum care from the midwife (again, yes).

What was interesting, to me at least, was that prior to leaving the practice and opting for a homebirth, the subject of having a homebirth came up during one of my visits, and the care provider railed against the idea, calling it "dangerous." And yet, from the questions I was being asked following my successful homebirth, it was obvious that at least two providers in the practice had little understanding of what homebirth actually entailed or what the training of the homebirth midwife might have involved. It makes you wonder - how can you argue against something if you honestly know nothing about it?