<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: gender discrimination</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'gender discrimination'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22gender+discrimination%22&t=%22gender+discrimination%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:59:05 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Even With Insurance, Childbirth Is An Expensive Undertaking</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5096209&amp;cid=t_136516_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Feven-with-insurance-childbirth-is-an-expensive-undertaking%2F2011.08.03</link>
            <description>Childbirth hospital costs these days aren&amp;#8217;t cheap. Some studies suggest the cost of raising a child exceeds $200,000, not including education expenses.   Most insurance companies charge women of childbearing age more for their insurance because the actuarial tables say so.  Mrs  Happy and I now have a 3 month old Zachary in our wings.  He is a cute little peanut.  His two brothers, Marty and Cooper adore him.
Forty-two days after his April 21st, 2011 delivery, we still had not received our explanation of benefits from Blue Cross Blue Shield for the midwife charge.  I had previously received a statement from them saying the charge was under review.  Perhaps they believed that delivering Zachary was not medically necessary.  I can&amp;#8217;t explain it.
When I called to ask them w...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5096209</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5096209</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tuesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4653312&amp;cid=t_136516_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FBu-siNuvTgo%2F</link>
            <description>By George Scoville
Shifting America's focus away from individual liberty is waging war on the future, not winning it.
U.N. &quot;authorization&quot; is the Emperor's new fig leaf for war with Libya.
Why are we fighting Mexico's drug war?
David Boaz remembers Geraldine Ferraro, who helped advance the war against gender discrimination in politics.
Chris Preble eulogizes the Weinberger/Powell doctrine against the backdrop of the Libyan war:



Tuesday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4653312</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:32:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4653312</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bayer Employees File Gender Discrimination Lawsuit</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4615425&amp;cid=t_136516_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FVTA_6SZzBh8%2F</link>
            <description>Six current and former Bayer employees have filed a lawsuit against the drugmaker and its US unit over charges they suffered gender discrimination, denial of equal pay and promotions, and retaliation. And they are seeking $100 million in damages and class-action status. They are represented by the same firm that filed suit against Novartis and resulted in a $152 million over similar charges (back story).
The lawsuit alleges a pattern discrimination in pay, promotions, and the treatment of pregnant women and mothers. Specifically, they charge Bayer pays women less than their male counterparts; deny promotions to better and higher paying jobs; limits employment opportunities to lower and less desirable job classifications, and exposes them to different treatment and a hostile work environmen...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4615425</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:38:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4615425</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lame-Duck Menace: The Paycheck Fairness Act</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4175680&amp;cid=t_136516_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FT2DFI4g2qIE%2F</link>
            <description>By Walter OlsonAt Compensation Cafe, Stephanie Thomas explores some of the &amp;#8220;nonsensical implications&amp;#8221; of a misnamed bill that&amp;#8217;s a high Obama administration priority in the lame duck session:
Let&amp;#8217;s assume that John and Jane have identical characteristics (education, work experience, etc.) except for gender. ABC Company makes offers of employment to John and Jane on the same day, for the same position, for the same starting salary: $45,000. Jane accepts the offer, but John negotiates the salary, and ends up with $50,000. Under the current equal pay laws, there&amp;#8217;s no problem; John is earning more because he negotiated and Jane did not. Makes sense, right? Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, ABC Company would be guilty of gender discrimination.
Here&amp;#8217;s another ex...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4175680</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:45:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4175680</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Novartis Rep: It Was The Worst That Could Happen</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3599734&amp;cid=t_136516_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FmKpSwNtRVFs%2F</link>
            <description>Last week, a federal jury ordered Novartis to pay $250 million in punitive damages and $3.3 million in compensatory damages for discriminating against female employees, who alleged they suffered a pattern of gender discrimination (see this). A dozen women filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of about 5,600 female employees over pay, promotion and pregnancy-related matters.
One of those who testified was Raelene Ryan, 41, who worked as a Novartis sales rep from June 2001 to August 2003. She described how the drugmaker schemed to fire her because she expected to be on leave for several months due to an upcoming pregnancy, but argued her dismissal was due to falsifying records (see testimony). An email from her manager to HR, however, states: &amp;#8220;As you are aware, she is going to be term...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3599734</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 13:56:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3599734</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Novartis Defense, Gender Bias &amp; A Tin Ear</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3589042&amp;cid=t_136516_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FBMfqNcP46DQ%2F</link>
            <description>We know lawyers are supposed to discredit witnesses, but then there is the choice of words that are used to do so. Consider the impression left by Richard Schnadig, who represented Novartis, which this week was told to pay $250 million in punitive damages for engaging in a pattern of discrimination against female employees. The dozen women filed a class action suit over pay, promotion and pregnancy-related matters (see the lawsuit).
Given that this was a case about sex discrimination, it might have been advisable to avoid using language that fosters sterotypes. But as The American Lawyer point outs (subscription required), here&amp;#8217;s how some of the women who filed suit were characterized in the closing remarks&amp;#8230;
For instance, Tara Blum testified her manager pressured her not to hav...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3589042</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 16:15:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3589042</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Ninth Circuit’s Controversial New Class Action Decision</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3511528&amp;cid=t_136516_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fd3Ze7kVTUW8%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark MollerThe Ninth Circuit has issued its long-awaited en banc decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, a pathbreaking class action seeking relief from Wal-Mart for alleged gender discrimination on behalf of somewhere between 500,000 and 1.5 million women. The upshot: a 6-5 partial affirmance of one of the most questionable class certification approvals in recent memory.
The case is sparking considerable commentary: see here, here, and here, for starters. Cataloguing all the myriad questionable parts of the 135+ page decision, which range from the standard for admitting expert testimony in support of certification, to the permissibility of so-called &amp;#8220;issue classes,&amp;#8221; to due process restraints on award of class-wide punitive damages, would take a blog post rivaling the length of the N...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3511528</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:05:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3511528</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Hey Goodyear, Screw You.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1404250&amp;cid=t_136516_151_f&amp;fid=35793&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejunkyswife.com%2F2008%2F04%2Fhey-goodyear-screw-you.html</link>
            <description>Me and some Cuntfaces are pissed off about Goodyear not treating female employees right. Nothing gets my goat like unequal pay for equal work. Please go to The Point and sign the petition to show your support. Please sign and make me happy, and spread the word on your own blogs. You can read the summary of the issue below:Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for over 20 years, and only upon retirement was she informed that she had consistently made significantly less than every man in the same position for her entire career. She was significantly less than the lowest paid male in a similar position.Goodyear Tire Co refused to settle the case for a measly $60,000, the difference between Ledbetter’s pay and the lowest paid male worker in the same position. A jury awarded Ledbetter damages o...</description>
            <author>Heroin Addiction Codependence</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1404250</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:22:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1404250</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Judge Grants Class Action In Novartis Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Filed By Sales Reps</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=773491&amp;cid=t_136516_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F139660765%2F</link>
            <description>A federal judge has granted class-action status to a 2004 lawsuit filed by 19 current and former Novartis sales reps who allege the drugmaker subjected them to sexual discrimination in pay, promotional opportunities and pregnancy-related matters, along with sexual harassment and retaliation. About 5,000 women are believed to qualify as plaintiffs, since the relevant timeframe dates back to 2002.
&amp;#8220;These women suffered and we hope, by next summer, we&amp;#8217;ll get to put on their case,&amp;#8221; says David Sanford, their attorney, who two weeks ago filed a similar lawsuit against Sanofi-Aventis and is also actively involved in a series of lawsuits against 14 big drugmakers on behalf of sales reps who allege they should have been paid overtime. Of those, suits against Merck and Novartis wer...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=773491</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:21:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">773491</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

