Woman Forced To Wear Diapers To Work, Wins $150,000 Settlement

[Protection]

Frankly, having worked in the bush with female coworkers

play on words Snugglebug?

[Snugglebug]

play on words Snugglebug?

*blinks innocently*

Whilst I've been known to turn a clever phrase or two, shamefully, that one wasn't intentional. *sheepish grin*

[Snugglebug]

I think she deserved more than what they gave her. I would expect this kind of thing in a third world country, not here.

Yeah, Third World countries tend to be more realistic and pragmatic, instead of always looking for a quick buck by suing someone on spurious grounds.

[Snugglebug]

Having revisited this subject, I came to wonder as to what road construction companies would have to do to, as the legal precedent has been set, to prevent themselves from more stinky sue-age. I mean, wow, the expense of dragging along a port-a-potty for the singular overly-delicate worker would really cut in to everyone's Christmas bonus. Then I hit upon a solution: all they have to do is add the following to the job description: must be able to pee in the woods. It's a completely non-discriminatory requirment; problem solved!

[d_drew12]

I'm not sure of the exact numbers but I've heard a large, like 50% or more of the cost of a general aviation airplane, smaller one like 2-8 seater, is liability. Basically cost put on the owner because others have sued or will sue for millions over a part that failed after 30years, no joke. We're talking everyone paying tens of thousands or more on the price tag of a new plane just to cover for a couple people who will win 100 million dollar cases. Not saying they shouldn't make them safe but that's insane to be able to sue over something produced decades ago.

Look at the Dr. Phil episode that aired today 12-3-09. I caught the end but it was about ridiculous court cases. This stuff just pisses me off. Nothing like getting rich off stupidity I guess.

You know dang well if this were a 25year old man single man, no family, in the same situation as the lady in the story, the case would've been dismissed before it made it anywhere.

[AutieAB]

Having revisited this subject, I came to wonder as to what road construction companies would have to do to, as the legal precedent has been set, to prevent themselves from more stinky sue-age.

Nothing, I don't think - IIRC, they settled out of court so no precedent was set.

[Snugglebug]

Nothing, I don't think - IIRC, they settled out of court so no precedent was set.

Fair point, but still, if one person tries to sue on such grounds and gets a settlement, even out of court, it opens up the playingfield for others.

[Diaper Mike 05]

Some rumors say that even Nascar drivers wear them...

And they are only rumors, and untrue at that. Diapers are unnecessary in a racecar because the combination of air temperature and track temperature creates a higher in-car temperature, which causes drivers to sweat profusely, releasing the fluids they take in to be released in the form of sweat (the cars do not have air conditioning, and the driver's only cooling source is a fan hose that attaches to the top of the helmet). The only way they even may be worn in a car is if the driver is trying to make it through an entire race with a stomach virus, and not too many drivers would try to do that.

And again, she got more than she deserved. It's not like she could leave her post at any time to take a pee break. If she knew she had bladder problems, she needed to take the initiative to do what she needed to provide protection for herself. Or, if she couldn't do that, not take the job on the grounds she could not perform the required duties.

[loopy]

I always thought that racecar drivers had an "attachment" which allowed them to pee as they drove, they may lose fluid from sweating but they're also constantly drinking to replace that. I remember the top gear episode where the guys competed in a 24 hour race, and they mentioned they could tell when James May was having a pee (ok they pointed at the computer screen and shrieked "HE'S PEEING!" )

[d_drew12]

In the state of michigan, its required by law that ALL construction sites have a port-a-pot on site.

Yeah, but what's considered a "construction site". Like the osha requirements, there are certain criteria that must be met to consider it a construction site.

You shouldn't know your limitations with any job and you will know what's a problem right away and whether or not you can or should keep the job. If I started a job and then found out I had to be able to do x, y and z and they were all reasonable expectations and within osha regulations well then I should just quit and not sue.

[Snugglebug]

In the state of michigan, its required by law that ALL construction sites have a port-a-pot on site.

Yeah, but we're talking about a highway, not a construction site. And it's not like the crew stays in one place, either. It works its way down the highway (or at least it's supposed, but doesn't seem like they're moving very fast when you get held up by road construction).

[BBB]

They have tow-able porta-johns. They sit on trailers. VERY common here in Southern California. Some gardening crews even have them.

[Snugglebug]

They have tow-able porta-johns. They sit on trailers. VERY common here in Southern California. Some gardening crews even have them.

Still an unnecessary expense when almost every other highway crewperson has learned that it's okay to pee in the bushes. (It's not like we haven't been doing it since the dawn of our ancient ape ancestors, for pity's sake.)

[d_drew12]

Look up the laws about bathrooms through osha, I posted a link here eirler. There are times when they are required and not. You can't just say "construction". Putting up a mailbox is "contruction". Does the guy need to tow a porta-potty around for a 1hour job? NO. Even if it were an all day job, NO. An over the road truck driver knows there may be 30,40,50,60 miles between rest stops or even a place to pee in remote areas. There doing a job too. Should he sue his company he works for because he needed to pee suddenly and there wasn't a bathroom around for 30 miles? Nope. He should know his limitations or wear something or find a way to remedy his situation and then not sue his company over it.

You know, people tend to forget that if everytime a company is made to comply to another law, it likely cost them money. In turn, it cost the employees money too as it has the trickle down effect.(no pun intended) I think the current laws and regulations as stated in the osha manual are fine regarding bathrooms. I'm sure the company was in compliance as they stated this and no one else seemed to be complaining. This lady just sounds like she wanted an immediate stand in replacement for her so the minute she relized she had to go, she could and not wait for a half hour which to me is reasonable. If she wanted a stand in replacement, they would've hired two people for one persons job and cut her wage in half then. All I have to say is Karma's a b-i-t-c-h!