Some things should be brought up in private.

[ZipTheWonder]

Would you be okay with the fact that your employer is concerned with you over the other employees, has developed a sudden concern for a particular chemical over others equally dangerous chemicals, and made reference to your reproduction....if he did it privately?  I guess I'm having trouble sorting out just what the complaint is.  That's something I really think you should nail down before escalating this.

[sahmommi3]

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?

Well, since I'm not a chemist, I really don't know much about these things...LOL But if it really seems he singled you out unnecessarily, then bring it up to him in a private meeting. If this is the first time he's done something like this, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but it shouldn't hurt to bring it up. If you feel he is consistently singling you out simply because of the gender differences, then take it to HR.

[ShadesOfGrey]

I was at a meeting last week with 5 men.  I am the only woman in my department.  We were discussing different solvents (I'm a chemist) and our boss had reservations about a particular one, stating "at the back of my mind, I'm concerned about [Czarina Burrito] working with [solvent]."  He went on to say that "women of childbearing age shouldn't be exposed to [solvent]."

A few points...
1) He singled me out by name in a meeting with 6 people to effectively speculate on my reproductive organs.  I wouldn't be bothered much if he had brought his concerns up to me privately.

2) He was concerned about a substance that may cause birth defects, but doesn't affect fertility, so pregnant women are the only ones at risk.  I am not pregnant and personally never want to be.  If this were anywhere other than work, I would have said as much, but I really don't need to alientate the 9 fathers I work with any more than I already have by virtue of being female.

3) Oh, and also... it destroys your liver.  Yes, there's that little detail.  I heard that men have livers as well.  I personally am quite fond of mine.  In fact, at the exposure that the fetus-mutating effects kick in, your liver is already begging you to secure a spot on the transplant waiting list.

The poster that sad that the boss is focusing on her as a potential mother, rather than a valued employee really crystalized the issue. 

I just wanted to repost the OP's original post, because in it are all the details that explain why this was inappropriate, and may have led to discrimination.  Granted, I am pretty sensitive to these issues, but the boss in this situation clearly singled her out (by namem AND by the fact that she is the only female) and gave special attention to her reproductive organs, OVER everyone's liver.  He even indicated that he was worried about her handling a solvent due to the effect it had on 'women of childbearing age' which means she may miss some opportunities due to HIS assumption about her potential as a mother (granted no actual opportunity had been missed, but if there was something leading up to that situation, it would be comments like these).  This refutes many of the arguments in the previous posts about him "just showing concern (in general)," and a few others.  And as another poster mentioned, it is this type of "concern" has kept women out of traditionally male roles.  But based on CB's responses, I think she gets that. 

CzarinaBurrito, it sounds like you have a pretty astute understanding of the situation, and I stick by my original suggestion to not make a big deal of it, but let him know that his concern, (even though it may have been genuine or well-intended) it was inappropriate to be mentioned in that way (or mentioned at all, but it sounds like you wouldnt have been as aggravated if he mentioned it in private - though I think it would be discriminatory to bring it up in this manner in private as well) and you would prefer that he address all of the safety hazards and if he had any specific concerns, that he wouldnt single you out publicly.  I am not saying he was malicious in his discriminations -just that sometimes older men, or men brought up under a certain mentality just dont realize that their concerns are patronizing/misplaced.

good luck. 

[Hawkwatcher]

     

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!

Well, the OP did mention that one of the men expressed concern about the possible effects that this solvent might have on him.  This would have been a perfect opportunity for the the OP's boss to explain to his employees what the risks were to them but that it is very rare for an individual to suffer from liver damage as a result of contact with this solvent if the risks are truly low.  The fact that he did not mention these risks indicates to me that he either was not aware of these risks or the only risk he thought was relevant was to the OP's non-existent baby.

   

[Pixie]

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 was also wondering if perhaps the boss was trying to fulfill hazmat requirements of employee notification, most of which are mandatory. In which case, ALL employees are required to be notified.

OR MAYBE NOT.

[ZipTheWonder]

gave special attention to her reproductive organs

Actually, he gave special attention to women of childbearing years.  Women of childbearing years may not even have reproductive organs.

[MadMadge43]

I don't think the boss was at fault for trying to avoid a potential lawsuit. Worrying about putting a woman of childbearing age with chemicals that could be potentially hazzardous to her reproductive organs or unborn children just makes sense. All OP needed to do was say, you don't need to worry about that and if you need me to sign a release I will.  End of discussion and end of her not being able to get a juicy assignment. I don't think it's anything to get upset about.

I don't think I would be too upset about the other comment, but I can see how he might have said it all snarky like you're a dried up prune for not having children, but I can also see it as just trying to joke around too. I loved the answer: and how would you know?

But I do think in a work place you really have to be able to get some thick skin and not take very many things personally.  There are too many different genders, religions, political affiliations etc. If no one had a sense of humor no one would ever talk.

I have told my male co-workers that I love to joke, but I do have a line. If they start to cross it I point it out. Simply say, you're starting to cross that line and they immediately stop.  This way they know where the boundaries are and we can still have some fun.

[NOVA Lady]

WOW I could not disagree more with posters who think you are over reacting!

Single a women out because of her gender/ability to give birth is not appropriate. Making comments about her having/not having experienced child birth is also inappriopriate.

Or would it be OK for me to joke with a married but childless male employee that he hadn't managed to knock his wife up yet?

[Sharnita]

MarineDCA, do you actually thin that if a bunch of married men who were fathers were talking about what they observed about childbirth thye wouldn't tease the young amn with no kids that he didn't know about that yet? Most guys I know would make a comment like that to the guy without kids - unless they were aware of specific fertility concerns. They might even feel obligated to make a comment to draw in the "inexperienced" one - as in "Here we are taking about the births of our kids and Mikey can't participate because he hasn't had any kids. Gotta say something to pull him into the conversation."

BTW, are we assuming that OP is the only woman who will ever be hired for this job so there is no concern about future employees who might object to chemicals that casue birth defects?

[ShadesOfGrey]

It's not about him giving her the safety warning or not, by all means, he should be discussing EVERY safety concern with EVERY employee.  But, he didnt. 
He singled her out for concern (by name, mind you, and by virtue of the fact that she is the ONLY woman there [and yes, that would stand up as a legal argument in a court of law]) and was concerned for her safety (a woman of childbearing age) OVER being concerned about all his employees livers (and as the OP mentioned, the liver concerns are more more immediate than the reproductive ones.  Had someone said those words to me, my next logical thought would be wondering if he was going to take XXX experiments away from me. And I would ge righteously indignant over that. 
Not to mention, as later posts by the OP noted, it sounds like he is cherry picking what he discusses as safety concerns.  BAD for all employees, IMO. The fact that it was in front of her peers just adds salt to the wound, IMO.

I am not saying she shouldnt have been aware of the safety concerns, or that she (herself) shouldnt have considered them for herself more so than her male counterparts.  I am saying that the way her boss expressed his concern was discriminatory. 

I am not saying he was malicious in his intent, in fact, I can understand why some older men 'sexually harrass' younger women - in their day their actions were completely normal.  It doesnt excuse the behavior, but it does mean that the old dog needs to learn new tricks (whether he likes it or not) if he is making a hostile working environment. 

As people we have instincts, and I can completely understand this guys instinct to be concerned over his female employee working with solvents that could affect her (and not others) in XX way.  BUT, he needs to learn to address those concerns in a way that isnt potentially limiting for the OP.  (note I said potentially.  I recognize that no opportunity was actually taken away, but for me, that type of concern is a precursor to those types of actions, IMO)

MarinaDCA, I think we are of like mind on this one. 

[NOVA Lady]

Sharnita, that type of comment from men OR women is inappropriate in the work place.

No one at work (especially a boss) can comment on childbirth decisions/possibilities. People simply don't have to take that at work.

If you disagree, I suppose that just is what it is

[ZipTheWonder]

What did he say about her childbirth decisions and possibilities?

[hobish]

Are you a woman?  Are you of childbearing age?  If the answer to those is yes - and this is  clearly apparent - then I don't think he did anything wrong.  He has no business asking about your reproductive wishes.  So it becomes completely imaterial if you ever want to have children.  That just doesn't matter. 

I guess I think he would have been out of line if he had mentioned something irrelavant to the situation or something private.  But you being a female isn't exactly private knowledge. 

I have to disagree with that. He was out of line. Just because it is clearly apparent does not mean it is ok to single someone out like that. Especially since boss-man was incorrect & it is only PREGNANT women who should not handle said substance.

[NOVA Lady]

To me it boils down to not wanting to be singled out at work because I am female or worse being affectively treated/thought of as "pre-pregnant".

It reminds me of the CDC recommendations that ALL women of child bearing age do certain things or not do certain other things simply because they might become pregnant. While the health guidelines were all good for women AND men to follow single out women for the sole reason that they MIGHT become pregnant was offensive to many.

Here, there was a real concern for safety for ALL people about the solvent. But the OP was singled out because of the possibility that she *might* become pregnant. There is alot more to her as a person then her ability to give birth. She is an intelligent and informed women. Plainly stating: "The health risks of solvent is liver damage, birth defect, blah and blah" is a lot different then saying: "OP cannot use solvent because she might become pregnant".

[audrey1962]

Okay, it's been over 10 years since I've worked in a lab - but isn't that why there are MSDS sheets? When I did my research in college, the professor had me read the sheets and then made himself available if I had any questions or concerns, that was it. No lectures on my being a female student and needing to "protect my reproductive organs." I think he just said something like, "please read up on the potential hazards of the chemicals you will be working with."

To the OP - does your work have the MSDS sheets readily available? Isn't that required by law? If so, WHY does any employer need to advise his employees on hazardous effects when that is the purpose of MSDS? (Or is my memory wrong and I'm reading more into their importance than I should be?)

Edited to correct verb tense.