Lilah Sutphen: Surrogacy Soapbox
How Young Teens Are Different From Older Millennials
Oklahoma Official Questions Hiring Pregnant Woman
Filed under: In The News
Former state Sen. Herb Rozell questioned whether the newly elected Jessica Russell would be around for the key days of the upcoming legislative session due to her maternity leave. Credit: Getty Images
Shortly after the board voted to hire Jessica Russell, who is due to give birth in April, former state Sen. Herb Rozell noted that she was pregnant and questioned whether she would be around for key days of the upcoming legislative session.
Russell was hired to represent the state Department of Education's interests at the Capitol. The Oklahoma Legislature reconvenes Feb. 7 and must end its business by May 27.
"If she has that baby in April and takes off six weeks, she's worthless to us," Rozell said.
While there was some laughter in the room, state schools Superintendent Janet Barresi rebuked Rozell and ordered a 10-minute recess. Russell left the room in tears.
"Your comment is inappropriate and not worthy of this board and this department," Barresi said.
After the meeting, Rozell said his words came out wrong.
"I didn't mean to interfere. I was just hoping we could have her in April and May, because that's when everything gets tied up," he said.
Gov. Mary Fallin called Rozell's remark "demeaning" and "disgusting," while Sen. Clark Jolley and Sen. John Ford called for Rozell to resign. Jolley said Rozell's comment was "archaic, misogynistic and deplorable."
Rozell didn't immediately return a phone message seeking comment about calls for his resignation.
Oklahoma has about 660,000 students in its public education system.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. This article was written by MURRAY EVANS, Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Want to get the latest ParentDish news and advice? Sign up for our newsletter!
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
Lunchtime Live - Credit Reports and the Job Search
AOL Jobs staff reporter David Schepp examines the recent practice of employers looking at job applicants' credit reports as part of the hiring process. He speaks with Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst at Demos, and with Oneika O'Keefe, a young woman who was denied a retail job due to her credit report.
-
Survey: 20% Russians Will Sleep With Manager for Dream Job
A poll finds that 20% of Russians were willing to have sex with a hiring manager for a dream job. How far would you go to land your dream job?A recent poll geared towards residents in Russia revealed some surprising results. Approximately 20% of Russians were willing to sleep with a headhunter or human resource official to land a great job.65% of those surveyed flat out refused to trade sex for desired employment, but 15% were willing, as long as they liked the hiring official.
-
Laura Rowley on Better TV: Holiday Jobs
Retailers nationwide are expected to hire up to 500,000 seasonal workers this year, according to the National Retail Federation. But with high unemployment, expect stiff competition for jobs at the mall. DailyFinance's Laura Rowley offers tips on who else may be hiring at the holidays, and how to land those jobs.
-
Daily Digit: 198,000 Jobs in Feb
The Daily Digit today is 198,000, that's how many non-farm jobs U.S. private employers added in February, according to the newest ADP report. The better-than-expected number bolsters hopes that hiring across the economy is improving, despite worries about government belt-tightening. In February, hiring was spread evenly across small, medium and large businesses. In January, it was all about small firms. But that's not the end of the good news.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 5)
1-29-2011 @ 12:45PM
Jane said...Do you need a job? I have worked at home as an employee for more than 10 years now because I wanted to be home with my children. I make $35K working 4 hrs a day. Currently, I work for a large corporation and I set my own hours. You just have to know where to find these jobs. ( hTtp://Bit.LY/CitizensHomeJobs ) has real work at home jobs offered by major corporations. Everyone really needs to think outside the box when it comes to finding employment. What are you doing right now? You are on the internet. Where do you shop? Where do you book trips? The internet has opened up so many REAL jobs that can be worked from home. Hope this helps!
Reply
1-29-2011 @ 10:22AM
jojo said...Thought this type of thing was now against the law! Years ago, I was married, had one child and when I went on a job interview, I was asked the following questions, "Do you intend to have more children, do you drive, do you own your own car?" These are the types of questions, that were asked when I way a young mother! Companies needed to know that they could count on you being there, when they needed you.
Reply
1-28-2011 @ 5:38PM
leojazzles said...May years ago, I was asked, not only if I had children, but if I was using birth control!!!! This was in the early 70's - probably 1973!
1-28-2011 @ 8:12PM
GM said...Because she is pregnant everyone is supposed to ignore the obvious? SHE CANNOT DO THE JOB! If she isn't there when the legislature is meeting then how can she possibly represent the School Board?
1-28-2011 @ 8:08PM
yayabeanes said...Hey, in the 70's, my recently married older sister went to confession and told the young priest (who was around her age) that she started using birth control...He called her a "wicked woman."
1-28-2011 @ 10:52PM
Holly said...Legislative laison is just another name for lobbyist. Their session runs from the beginning of February through the end of May and anyone who's ever worked at a state capitol knows that sessions can easily be extended. While Rozell could have phrased his concerns in a different way, his concern is legitimate.
If you've ever worked in a state capitol during a legislative session, you'ld know that it's a very hectic place. If you are a lobbyist, it is not an 8-5 job. You spend hours chasing down legislators, standing outside of chambers, networking with others who support your legislation, wining and dining officials who can help your cause, attending events at dawn and one's that last to midnight. Lots of times, you don't have time to wait on the elevator but have to race up flights of stairs to do your job. It's physically trying on someone who isn't in the late stages of pregnancy. As people who've worked sessions know, most bills are passed in the last days of the session, so this woman as a lobbyist for the Board of Education would be virtually useless to represent the Board and children of the state.
I worked at a Capitol when my son was in grade school and he saw his mother in passing during the session as I was always on call. If I wasn't at the Capitol or at some event, I was on the phone. If she doesn't take maternity leave, it would be difficult to bond with her child and still do her job. If she does take maternity leave, the Board has no lobbyist who has built up rapport with legislators during the session. Rozell wasn't being anti-feminist just realistic.
It was stupid of the Board to hire this woman. She's probably related to someone on the Board or her family makes big contributions to the Board members who voted to hire her when the school board elections are held. Leaving the room crying shows immaturity. If this woman can't even stay to defend her qualifications and ability to perform the job, how is she going to convince a legislator to vote in the Board's interests?
1-28-2011 @ 2:43PM
Sue said...It's an honest concern, however the man certainly doesn't have the diplomacy to get it across. If you hire someone for a job, they need to be able to complete the job. Pregnancy is just one issue that may prevent someone from doing their job when needed. I feel it's both the employer and employees responsiblility to insure the employee is capable of completing their respective jobs.
Reply
1-28-2011 @ 9:36PM
Lisa said...You're missing the bigger point. It's against labor laws to discriminate against a woman who is pregnant. If you would give leave or concession for someone with a broken leg, arm, etc, you must give that to a pregnant woman and not prevent her from work on the basis that she will take time off for her baby. She can plan for her time off as best she can and also work from home for part of the time. There are ways around it. To discriminate against her for her pregnancy is wrong. The next person who may not be pregnant could have a family emergency and take time off or be in an accident and need time off, etc. Let's not go back to the dark ages people.
1-29-2011 @ 8:36AM
loisvon said...He definately said it wrong, but why did they hire her for a job that she would not be able to do. She could be out the whole time. I have 5 children and am all for non-descrimination but in this case it is a question of being able to fulfill her obligations.
1-28-2011 @ 2:55PM
Jim said...OK so you don't like them asking about pregnancy. What if it was someone that was being hired to do a specific job in the next six months and they were planning to have hip replacement surgery in three months? They have a condition that makes them useless to get that job done. They get passed over for the job because they can't do it in the timeframe required. Right or wrong? Discrimination if you don't hire them or are you being responsible with your choice?
Does it matter if it is pregnancy or a hip? If they can't do the job in the necessary time frame then they aren't the correct person for the job. It isn't a job cooking hamburgers at the local fast food chain. It is a job that requires certain things to be done at certain times. If she was already hired and then got pregnant it would be a different story. The person who hired this pregnant woman should be questioned on their poor decision considering the circumstances.
Reply
1-29-2011 @ 10:00PM
jww501217 said...A good response, just get ready to hear a backlash from people who think PC all the time.
1-28-2011 @ 6:23PM
Merk said...I agree, and I'm a woman. And it's different for jobs which have a short, constrained timeframe such as the one in question. If it were a job that were to continue indefinitely, I would say that they should still allow her to be hired. But the simple fact is that she can't be in attendance for the majority of the length of the job. Everyone needs to stop being so worried about being pc and use some common sense!
1-29-2011 @ 10:00PM
wes said...The woman should never have been hired for such a short term position because she cannot fulfill your work duties and has nothing to do with her just being pregnant. She probably has a great resume, but not qualifed at this time. Another PC hire that will backfire on the school system. The guy was right, but just used the wrong terminology.
Reply
1-28-2011 @ 3:13PM
Liz said...At least she's working.
Reply
1-28-2011 @ 3:13PM
Sally Hiatt said...I dont think he said anything wrong at all, Im a Mother and if I had a business, I would certainly want the person I hired to do the job. This isnt an insult against a woman at all, business is business. Sometimes you cant do something just because its your right, you need to think about others when you demand your "rights" In other words, grow up and use your head
Reply
1-28-2011 @ 3:42PM
susie said...im with you, well said.
1-28-2011 @ 6:55PM
Ms2001 said...You are so right. I don't care what the reason is - she can't do the job during the most crucial time so she is useless to them whether you like what he said or not - he's right.
1-29-2011 @ 9:59PM
jww501217 said...Typical response.
Reply
1-28-2011 @ 3:40PM
'CAL' said...THE ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY JUST WHAT MONTH SHE WAS HIRED; HOWEVER, IT DOES SAY THAT SHE WAS DUE IN - APRIL. IF MOST OF THIS PARTICULAR JOB SHE WAS HIRED FOR GOES FROM FEB. TO MAY, THEN SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIRED FOR THIS PARTICULAR JOB.
NOW, SHE MAY HAVE NEEDED THE MONEY FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUT SHE COULD HAVE APPLIED SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE TIME-DEMAND JOB WAS NOT THAT IMPORTANT
YES, SHE CERTAINLY IS 'WORTHLESS' AS A LEGISLATIVE LIASON. HOW 'BOUT 'MORNING SICKNESS'? HOW 'BOUT UNFORSEEN PAINS OR DISCOMFORTS? WHAT ABOUT EARLY DELIVERY?
WILL THIS JOB GIVE HER MEDICAL COVERAGE? ARE WE NOW HIRING PEOPLE WHO WILL 'IMMEDIATELY' NEED MEDICAL COVERAGE AND WILL BRING IMMEDIATE MEDICAL NEEDS / DEMAND TO THE JOB. MORE FINANCIAL DRAIN ON THE TAXPAYER, IF YOU ASK ME ~
GET REAL HERE PEOPLE & STOP LETTING YOUR EMOTIONS INTERFERE WITH YOUR GOOD JUDGMENT. . . . . . .
Reply
1-28-2011 @ 3:20PM
Frankling said...I'll poke the bear! How effective was Sarah Palin in her partial tenure as Alaskan governor, when she spent 9 months of her 2 years in office in her own home, paying herself per diem because she wasn't in the governor's residence? It's unfortunate that Rozell was so undiplomatic, but it is a legitimate concern. Why would you hire someone who isn't going to be present to do the job? Showing up is a major criteria for wemployment, and with some jobs, the ONLY criteria!
Reply