If I don't have kids and my coworkers who do get preferential treatment beacuse of it, is this discrimination?
103631
yes there is a chance that you could, but the wave of the future for people is having a family and still working in the corporate world. Go see a lawyer
181778
if 22yrs ago you were a minor no but yes if you were over 18 and sry to say it may stop you from getting a child.  depends on the worker you gets and the circumstances behind it
489360
No this is not discrimination.  I have a friend who manages an apartment complex and yes people can get turned down for an apartment if they have a felony conviction on there record.  I was actually in her office when a prospective tenant was turned down over the phone because of a prior murder charge.  I asked her the same question you are asking and the reason they can do this is to protect the other tenants.  Also since it is hard for former convicted felons to find jobs it can be difficult to for them to pay their rent.  Keep in mind these apartment complexes provide the service of renting you a place to live for a price.  Just like any other business they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
803673
This isn't an area especially well covered by law so comes down to what is regarded as 'reasonable'. Obviously that varies according to the circumstances. For example, if you work for a small business, they've recruited another part-time worker to job share your role and so they don't now have a full-time job to give you, you're in difficulties. Mind you, that's a fairly rare situation. If you work somewhere fairly large then there's unlikely to be a problem. Essentially if they're able to accommodate your request to return to full-time working then they should do that. If not they should demonstrate that they have no business need for you to work extra hours. If so they should review matters if that business need changes - if they look to recruit more staff without returning you to full-time they'd have some good questions to answer. In reality they'll probably take your hand off because it helps them as much as it helps you.\n\nI'd suggest that, to begin with, you have a quiet chat with your manager to test the waters. If that doesn't go well, then it's an idea to take some advice from your union, if you have one. If you get to the situation where they are refusing this without good cause, you may need to submit an internal grievance. There should be a 'staff handbook' or similar setting out procedures for that. If there are no unions where you work, you're still entitled in law to be accompanied to meetings on this by a colleague you trust. Here it would be well worth making the point that part-time working for new mothers is not generally viewed as a permanent arrangement and so arrangements should be as flexible as the business allows. If that were to fail with still no reasonable explanation given I think your ultimate recourse would probably be taking a sex discrimination case to an Employment Tribunal - on the basis that inflexible transition arrnagements between full and part-time working have greater effect on women - who take most parenting and care responsibilities - than on men and that this is discriminatory.\n\nThat's just by way of general background, I'd be amazed if things got to anything like that stage. I'd think your boss will be happy to take you back full-time - in most places there's too much work and not enough bodies !\n\nOne thing though, and please don't take this wrong. If someone in my team was in this situation I'd be a little bit concerned about them and would want to try and make sure in my own mind that all was OK before supporting a request like this. Not to the extent of digging in their souls - just to be sure that they really were all right and this wouldn't cause them any problems. I know folk tend to be pretty cynical about managers - and rightly so, I suppose - but some do feel a personal responsibility for their team and want to make sure they do nothing to cause people any problems in their personal lives. Obviously I don't know the first thing about your situation and probably there aren't any problems lurking but your manager should at least be bothered enough to ask !\n\nHope this works out for you
60975
Rude yes, but illegal, no.  It could be against COMPANY policy.  You may want to check with Human Resources / Personnal.
181290
Absolutely! Either that or file a complaint with your company. This is going against the codes of business ethics, and if pushed, can result in a discrimination case.\nIf you are offended by the use of that word, then it would be considered a "hostile work environment." I personally get pretty ticked off when anyone uses that word around me.
801209
None of them, I work in a HR Dept- My company is very diverse having a large population of many religions and different sexual preferences. \nTo work in my dept, you must embrace each personnel choice and absolutely have no negative remarks about it. The fellas you named above, no offense but I think they have their own agenda and it would not fit in at my company very well. It would be cool to volunteer at a food bank with all of them though!
6776
This would depend upon the supervisor, the type of discrimination and the company.\nIf the supervisor is open and a “people person,” you can approach him or her directly.  If the supervisor is a company stooge, by all means avoid this.\nIf the discrimination is about something very minor, it will probably do no good to complain.  Usually these items get placed under “sour grapes” or “disgruntled employee” and nothing happens except a black mark in your records.  If the item is major, consider carefully all of the consequences before becoming a “whistle blower.”\nUsually you will need the help of a lawyer specializing in labor law.
907146
some people prefer it, you don't get holidaypay or sick pay or redundancy
49419
I've never ever felt discriminated against for being a woman.  There are things I have felt discrimated against for and these are...\n1)having three kids (in trying to rent a place or getting a job), \n\n2)choosing to stay at home with my kids vs. working outside the home\n\n3)Being low-income.
809953
no , but you may have a discrimination case
917436
I dont want either party to decide for me. I want them to do their job and protect me.  I can decide for my self thanks.  And when you make decisions for other groups that effects me that is wrong too.  I dont want to pay for your ineptness to take care of your self.  thats why I work look it up its a novel concept.
987827
Your employer does not have to take your family needs into consideration. You now have a choice: Find a new day care or find a new job.
866642
Absolutely!  We do not discriminate against any potential members.....especially on the basis of having a child or children.  I am an AKA and I have children as do most of the sorors that I know.\n\nNow, if you are asking if there is a policy that does not allow you to have chiodren during the membership intake process, then the answer is no, you would just have to make sure that you have someone in place to watch your children while you participate in RUSH, MIP, most other AKA related activities.  Being a mother would NOT exclude you from membership!\n\nBest wishes on your endeavor to obtain membership!
908458
I doubt it.That is usually for disabled people.It is your responsibility to support your kids.Maybe you would qualify for some welfare,but that would be it.
990948
I would think that kids would be under the human right act. They are human too. I guess it would depend on what form of discrimination you are asking. Perhaps if you are more descriptive it would help. Some people don't realize that kids have rights to and have feeling.  Best of Luck
981567
In UK, I really don't think so. I have to hedge my bets, because it's hard to know for certain that something hasn't happened, but I'm pretty certain there's no applicable law.\n\nHowever, if someone was using length of service in a discriminatory way, and you could prove this, you would have a case. For instance, giving holidays based on length of service could be considered disciminatory to women (because they may have had a career break to have children). But I don't think there's any case law on this. In other words, no-one's won a case.\n\nThe only recent "employment" law is about age, but that can't apply in this case. Ultimately holiday conditions are between your employer and you.