Some things should be brought up in private.

[ShadesOfGrey]

I started to wonder if I misread the OP so I went back and reread. From what I can tell, they were discussing the solvents they could use and Boss stated he didn't want to use x solvent because of the possible birth defects that could result. He didn't in any way prevent Op from doing any job. He showed concern for her. OP feels the concern was misplaced. I can not see how saying "We won't use X chemical becasue I would hate to have Person affected" is discrimination.

I would love to have my school board as concerned for my safety and health as OPs boss seems to be. We have dirty air ducts, rampant rodents, multiple allergens, kids with a history of violence, occasional arson...

Those are issues that affect both men and women. And no group was singled out in your case...

It's discrimination because he singled out a female worker (used her name) for concern on a subject (reproduction) that he isnt allowed to speculate on.  Not to mention, he brought it up in front of other colleagues, which is entierly inappropriate (again, speculating on her reproductive decisions).  He completely ignored the other safety factors (liver damage) and didnt even mention being concerned about the employees (men and women) having liver damage. He was worried about CB ONLY BECAUSE she is of "childbearing age."  NOT because there was some inherent safety concern (like liver damage, or allergies, or sensitivity to XXX in the solvent).  From the tone of the conversation, it seems that a potential course of action could be to keep her from working with the solvent, which I recognize, hadnt actually happend, but with that kind of mentality, I would guess it wouldnt be long before she was denied something based on the fact that she is a woman. 

The appropriate course of action would have been to mention ALL of the safety concerns in front of everyone, and let the female employee come to him to discuss her personal safety concerns, if she had any, and make sure she was aware of the health hazards before she begun working with X solvent.   

Not trying to jump down your throat here, just trying to fully explain the reasons it is discrimination, since you asked. 

ETA: the OP added a great reason as well - it is patronizing to be concerned over her more than other employees.  And discriminatory. 

[NEDESAPIO]

How is it okay to speculate about someone else's reproductive system?  I don't care if it isn't "technically" sexual harassment, it's VERY impolite! 

POD.  The comment would have made me extremely uncomfortable, too.  The boss should have voiced his concern to the OP in private.

[sylvia224]

Call me a cynic, but when I read the OP's account of the incident, I took it to mean that he was speaking not so much out of concern for the contents of your womb but from a company liability perspective (as in, if you were to by chance become pregnant during the course of your work with this solvent, and your baby had the resulting birth defect, that the company would be liable and you'd all lose your jobs). That's just how I interpreted it, and when I got to the part about the liver damage, that really confused me. All I can assume is that perhaps he's not aware of the potential liver danger? Because I would think that the same liability issues would be at play if someone's liver were to fail as a result of their work.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong or discrimination or not, I honestly don't know. But FWIW, I would also have brought this up in private if I were him, rather than in front of everyone.

[sotadragon]

How is it okay to speculate about someone else's reproductive system?  I don't care if it isn't "technically" sexual harassment, it's VERY impolite! 

POD.  The comment would have made me extremely uncomfortable, too.  The boss should have voiced his concern to the OP in private.

Thank you!

[girlmusic]

It seems to me that the OP's boss was probably trying to be sensitive to her gender difference and did not understand that he was doing anything wrong. I find that often men who are used to all-male or even mostly-male environments who are genuinly nice people don't realize that those kinds of comments could be taken offensively. Once they are informed, however, they make adjustments.

I agree that the OP should talk to him and give him a chance to change his tune.

 

[kingsrings]

It is inappropriate for him to mention any kind of gender-specific issues, especially right in front of everyone. The OP does not need to have her reproductive life or her female organs mentioned in front of everyone like that. It could be construed as sexual discrimination/harrassment. If the company was really concerned out of personal liability and legal reasons, then they could take their female employees aside and explain everything to them.

[DottyG]

her female organs mentioned in front of everyone like that

Not trying to nitpick here, but since several people keep saying something about this, I did want to point out that, unless the OP left out some details that y'all heard the boss say, never did he mention her uterus, fallopian tubes or vagina.

He said that the solvent wasn't safe for a female of childbearing age to be near.  Which is true of many items.  There are several very common products on the market right now that a female of childbearing age simply should NOT, in any circumstances, touch.  It has nothing to do with whether she's pregnant (or if she even wants to become pregnant at any point in her life).  It's just that this is a dangerous chemical that they have found, through clinical trials, to be extremely dangerous to females.

If my job protected me in such a way, it seems I'd be thanking them for knowing that this could be a dangerous substance for me to be near.  I don't care whether or not I ever wished to be pregnant.  The simple fact that they have determined it to be something dangerous to me is enough for me.  Heck, I don't want my innards damaged - baby or not.  If a person (female, male, black, white, tall, short, whatever) is at risk in some way, it's important for them to be aware of it.

Could he have mentioned it in private?  Sure.  Ok.  If it protects your (the generic "your" - not directed at anyone in particular) delicate sensibilities to be informed that you're a female, I guess he could whisper it to you.  But, was he "rude" in doing it the way he did?  No.  Had he mentioned any of the items in my 1st paragraph, it absolutely would have been rude - and subject to a talking to.  But, to generically say something about the dangers of this item?  Not really rude.

[Hawkwatcher]

her female organs mentioned in front of everyone like that

He said that the solvent wasn't safe for a female of childbearing age to be near.  Which is true of many items.  There are several very common products on the market right now that a female of childbearing age simply should NOT, in any circumstances, touch.  It has nothing to do with whether she's pregnant (or if she even wants to become pregnant at any point in her life).  It's just that this is a dangerous chemical that they have found, through clinical trials, to be extremely dangerous to females.

If my job protected me in such a way, it seems I'd be thanking them for knowing that this could be a dangerous substance for me to be near.  I don't care whether or not I ever wished to be pregnant.  The simple fact that they have determined it to be something dangerous to me is enough for me.  Heck, I don't want my innards damaged - baby or not.  If a person (female, male, black, white, tall, short, whatever) is at risk in some way, it's important for them to be aware of it.

The OP is not the only one who could suffer negative effects from this solvent.  Had the OP's boss addressed all of the potential dangers when addressing the OP and her coworkers, I do not think that she would have been unhappy.  The problem is that he only commented on one possible effect that the solvent would have on the OP.  In this case, I think that the main problem is that he is focusing on the OP's potential as mother instead of addressing her as a valued employee and competent professional.     

[DottyG]

In this case, I think that the main problem is that he is focusing on the OP's potential as mother instead of addressing her as a valued employee and competent professional.     

Not knowing the solvent in question or the clinical trials behind it, it's hard for me to speculate on the risks of it.  Perhaps the risk to society at large was more insignificant than the very high percentage of risk to a female of childbearing age.  Maybe the men in the group, not having the internal organs I mentioned, truly were not at as much of a risk.  The OP mentioned liver damage, but maybe it's a valid risk but a low one?  Maybe it's at a much lower risk than that of a female of a certain age?  Who knows?  We're speculating on something that we don't have enough data to judge on.

It is true, as I mentioned, that there are actually some drugs that men can use that women can not even touch.  There are some in which they actually must be careful around a man who has touched the drug.  It's just the way the two bodies work.  It has no effect on men (not having the same reproductive organs) that it has on women.  Perhaps this solvent is the same way.  Who knows?

And, I guess I'm still thinking that it matters not whether there will ever be a baby in the works, if something's been determined to harm my reproductive organs, I want it shouted from the rooftop.  Not because it'd harm the non-existent baby I have but because it'd harm ME!

[ZipTheWonder]

By refusing to use a solvent that adversely affects women of childbearing years in a company where a woman of childbearing years is working allows the OP to keep private everything but the fact that she is a women in her childbearing years.  It obviates the need for her to disclose whether (or not) she has reproductive organs or engages in reproductive acts.  

I think it was handled appropriately.  What if the substance was actually being used and a female employee was planning a pregnancy?  The employee would then have to disclose that she both has reproductive organs and engages in reproductive acts. The way it was handled avoids that.

[DottyG]

By refusing to use a solvent that adversely affects women of childbearing years in a company where a woman of childbearing years is working allows the OP to keep private everything but the fact that she is a women in her childbearing years.  It obviates the need for her to disclose whether (or not) she has reproductive organs or engages in reproductive acts.  

True.  I think that's a valid point.

[sahmommi3]

I think it was handled appropriately.  What if the substance was actually being used and a female employee was planning a pregnancy?  The employee would then have to disclose that she both has reproductive organs and engages in reproductive acts. The way it was handled avoids that.

I agree with your point. My question is: what if the boss had never mentioned it and a female employee became pregnant (not necessarily the OP, but how would he know that?) and there were complications because of exposure to this solvent? Wouldn't the boss be held liable because he withheld that information? I think that this seems to be a no-win situation for the boss, but if I were in this situation, I'd rather lay all my cards out on the table and risk offending someone, rather than find out someone was hurt because of the lack of information.

If it's the fact that the OP was mentioned by name, I can see how she might want to address that. But to say that he shouldn't have pointed out the danger to females in general seems like a bit of an overreaction (IMO).

[Cz. Burrito]

In this case, I think that the main problem is that he is focusing on the OP's potential as mother instead of addressing her as a valued employee and competent professional.     

Not knowing the solvent in question or the clinical trials behind it, it's hard for me to speculate on the risks of it.  Perhaps the risk to society at large was more insignificant than the very high percentage of risk to a female of childbearing age.  Maybe the men in the group, not having the internal organs I mentioned, truly were not at as much of a risk.  The OP mentioned liver damage, but maybe it's a valid risk but a low one?  Maybe it's at a much lower risk than that of a female of a certain age?  Who knows?  We're speculating on something that we don't have enough data to judge on.

It is true, as I mentioned, that there are actually some drugs that men can use that women can not even touch.  There are some in which they actually must be careful around a man who has touched the drug.  It's just the way the two bodies work.  It has no effect on men (not having the same reproductive organs) that it has on women.  Perhaps this solvent is the same way.  Who knows?

And, I guess I'm still thinking that it matters not whether there will ever be a baby in the works, if something's been determined to harm my reproductive organs, I want it shouted from the rooftop.  Not because it'd harm the non-existent baby I have but because it'd harm ME!

Mutagens and Teratogens head straight for the liver or kidneys first.  If it's bad enough to mutate or malform, it's going to cause severe damage to your waste processing organs.  That's a fact that anybody working with chemicals for more than 30 years should know.  In fact, if he had just simply stated that this material is a teratogen, we would all have the information that we need and there would be no need to mention "childbearing" or speak directly about me.  The studies of liver damage have been conducted on actual humans, whereas the teratogenic effects have only been studied in rats given excessively huge doses of the solvent.  (Yes, I looked it up after the meeting.  I was convinced that there must be some horrible curdling effect on female reproductive organs that would necessitate being that concerned about the exposure of a non-pregnant female.  Nope- just birth defects.)

I guess it comes down to this: there were more delicate manners in which to broach this topic.

[Cz. Burrito]

I think it was handled appropriately.  What if the substance was actually being used and a female employee was planning a pregnancy?  The employee would then have to disclose that she both has reproductive organs and engages in reproductive acts. The way it was handled avoids that.

I agree with your point. My question is: what if the boss had never mentioned it and a female employee became pregnant (not necessarily the OP, but how would he know that?) and there were complications because of exposure to this solvent? Wouldn't the boss be held liable because he withheld that information? I think that this seems to be a no-win situation for the boss, but if I were in this situation, I'd rather lay all my cards out on the table and risk offending someone, rather than find out someone was hurt because of the lack of information.

If it's the fact that the OP was mentioned by name, I can see how she might want to address that. But to say that he shouldn't have pointed out the danger to females in general seems like a bit of an overreaction (IMO).

I am the only female who would ever come into contact with whatever solvent we choose.  To speak about the dangers to women is to speak about me.  To speak about women of childbearing age is to discuss myself and my ripe uterus.  If he had specific concerns about female issues, he should have approached me privately.  Notably, he has never brought speciall attention to chemicals that can burn, blister, affect the central nervous system, target your blood and kidneys, cause blindness, etc.  So why now?  Why with the teratogen?

[Cz. Burrito]

Call me a cynic, but when I read the OP's account of the incident, I took it to mean that he was speaking not so much out of concern for the contents of your womb but from a company liability perspective (as in, if you were to by chance become pregnant during the course of your work with this solvent, and your baby had the resulting birth defect, that the company would be liable and you'd all lose your jobs). That's just how I interpreted it, and when I got to the part about the liver damage, that really confused me. All I can assume is that perhaps he's not aware of the potential liver danger? Because I would think that the same liability issues would be at play if someone's liver were to fail as a result of their work.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong or discrimination or not, I honestly don't know. But FWIW, I would also have brought this up in private if I were him, rather than in front of everyone.

That does make some sense, but overall I don't think the company is as concerned with liability as they ought to be.  When I started here two years ago, I introduced them to this crazy concept called "safety glasses."