Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: women,pregnancy,contracts, etc.
Message-ID: <573@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 12:25:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.573
Posted: Fri Jul 19 12:25:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 14:57:07 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 40

>  Of course I, as an employer, am not allowed to ask such
> silly questions as "Are you pregnant now?  Do you plan to get pregnant
> during the term of the assignment?".  That is discriminatory and 
> against the law, you see.

This question is discriminatory -- as it stands.  You are, however, allowed
to ask the question, "Do you have any commitments that would interfere
with the work requirements of this job, covering the period (date) to (date)?"
(You should ask this of both the male and female applicants.  He may have
500 guppies at home that restrict his travel availability.)  Then, you can
write a contract (PLEASE use a lawyer as a safeguard) that states they
certify that they anticipate _no_ interruption to their work capabilities
during the specified time period.  Under this type of contract, either a
male or female employee who breached it because of prior commitment would
be required to reimburse you for damages in some form.

Now, if she got pregnant AFTER the day she signed the contract, you would
have no recourse (after all, anything could happen to anybody that would
would land them in a hospital after signing a contract).  But if she were
pregnant BEFORE and KNEW IT (as in the case you stated), she would be
guilty of breaching her contract, and during the (probably inevitable)
lawsuit, you could bring as evidence her prior knowledge of her condition,
and even the EEOC can't support outright, blatant lying.

Note: the difference here is LYING about AVAILABILITY, not LYING about
PREGNANCY.  Pregnancy is dealt with in many situations sort of like
voluntary surgery.  You know about it ahead of time, people you work
with deserve to be informed so they can plan around your absense, but it
is NOT grounds for discharge or discrimination.  Think of it as a
voluntary gall bladder operation -- it means an absence sometime in the
near future, but no real diminution of either capabilities, or commitment
to the work project.

Also, as I've said, you can further protect yourself under the laws by
asking this question of ALL applicants, not just women, and applying it's
expectations to BOTH men and women.  Maybe the guy didn't screw you over
in this case, but you'd be a fool to hire only men in the future, because
there is one with guppies out there waiting to take advantage of you, too.

Adrienne Regard