Just to add to this, from the aspect of sharing other country info.
Until recently, we were all more or less unaware, that mothers could sue
under the Sex Discrimination Act, for being asked to stop breastfeeding
in commercial premises.
We were all mostly unaware of it, as no one had really mentioned it.
Last year, the UK Gov were asked to provide protection for breastfeeding
in England & Wales, as exists in Scotland. (It's an offence to try and
stop a mother or caregiver, feeding milk to a child two and under, in
any place the child has a right to be.)
In one of their replies, they nonchalantly said "Women have always been
able to sue for this under discrimination of maternity rights in the
SexDiscAct."
It was news to most of us!
However, we're not very happy with it as an answer. What we want, is
legal protection against harassment: full stop. Under the SDA
legislation, a mother who is asked to leave premises for breastfeeding,
would have to leave, and then file a private civil claim for
discrimination: and the burden of both proof and procedure, would be on
her. And it is only in premises where there is someone to sue for
discriminating over provision of goods and services, so it does not
include harassment in public places.
It was also used as a 'blocking' motion on the request to actually make
the harassment an offence. The UK Gov minister said something like "No
premises would ever ask a breastfeeding mother to leave, as they could
be sued, and they won't risk that." Ah, yes. Ah, hell no.
But it has been a useful revelation, in terms of empowering mothers in
England & Wales. As was the publicity at the time, with said Minister
for State making it clear that breastfeeding in public in England &
Wales could never be classed as indecent, and was perfectly legal.
Morgan Gallagher
Jake Marcus wrote:
>
> This is a good point Karen. :) The Ohio case was an interesting one and the
> result unique. The finding by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission that the
> breastfeeding discrimination was potentially sex discrimination was great
> and one with which I entirely agree even though other states have not held
> the same way. So you are correct, the NC mom may have the procedural
> possibility to file in the NC commission (a NC lawyer would have to examine
> the filing rules). It is a chance worth taking even though Ohio has the
> only commission to have come down with this holding with a law like this.
>
> Since the Ohio case settled, the preliminary holding concerning sex
> discrimination is not binding. But if the NC Commission will accept the case
> (and the mom has a lawyer) it is worth trying.
>
>
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1947 - Release Date: 02/10/09 17:44:00
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
