KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT TEXT

What was the the Kansas-Nebraska Act ?

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a bill, originally proposed in 1854 by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas that split the American territories west of Missouri into two factions, the Nebraska territory and the Kansas territory.  In the Kansas-Nebraska Act the two territories were to decide for themselves, through poplar sovereignty whether to permit slavery or not.  

The territory of Kansas comprised the land west of the Missouri border to the summit of the Rocky Mountains in what are now the States of Kansas and most of Colorado.  The territory of Nebraska consisted of the area north of Kansas to the Canadian border and west to the great divide. 

Background

Since the 1840’s the idea of a transcontinental railroad were becoming more and more prosperous to the United States.  Senator Stephen Douglas, partly to aid his constituents in Illinois and partly to garner support for a presidential run, wished to have the transcontinental railroad travel through Illinois; having its hub in Chicago. 

In order to make this happen the transcontinental railroad would have to take a northern route, putting it through, what was then, the Nebraska Territory.  His proposal was to organize the territory of Nebraska to bring it under civil control and populate the area which was, at this point in time, frontier land subject to attacks by Native Americans.  In Douglas’s view, manifest destiny required the removal of those members of the population who were deemed to be deviant and violent, meaning Native Americans.  The way to accomplish this goal was to create an incentive for individuals to establish communities and drive out the former inhabitants.

The proposal did not fare well among the southern population.  The southern States argued that The Missouri Compromise of 1820 outlawed slavery above the 36th latitude and therefore the Nebraska Territory would become a free territory.  

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 came about over the admission of Maine and Missouri as States in the Union.  After debate in Congress it was decided that Maine would be admitted as a Free State and Missouri a slave State.  In addition it was ruled that the slavery issue in all other territories west of Missouri would be decided on a geographic level.  All those lands north of the 36th parallel would be Free States and that south of that line would be slaves States.  The Missouri Compromise was amended in 1850 with the annexation of Texas.  The revised version, The Missouri Compromise of 1850 would make California a free State, Texas a slave State and the slaver issue in Utah and New Mexico territories would be decided by popular sovereignty.  

For fear that the territories would eventually become States and ultimately create an imbalance in Congress over the slavery issue, the south argued against the Act.  In order to quell southern dissent, and garner support for the bill, Douglas proposed a compromise.  

The compromise entailed the division of the Nebraska Territory into two distinct territories, the Nebraska Territory and the Kansas Territory.  In both territories the settlers were to vote on whether they would allow slavery in the territory.  Although it was never repealed, the Act ignored parameters of The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and helped bring the Civil War closer than ever.

Results of the Kansas-Nebraska Act

Immediate Results

Upon the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s enactment in May of 1854 it was already highly controversial and condemned by the Northern States.  It was considered a complete affront to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and was considered a betrayal by their own Senator.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act was also condemned by northerners because there was never a question as to whether the Nebraska Territory, before the Kansas-Nebraska Act, would become a free or slave territory.  Most of the territory was situated so far north that even the need for slaves was lacking.  Aside from the part of the territory that now comprises Nebraska and Kansas, there was little thought that the area would become a highly intense agricultural area demanding the use of slave labor.

The response to the Kansas-Nebraska act was nothing more than a rush to settle the Kansas Territory.  Where the decision on slavery was going to come to a popular vote, it was important for both the North and the South to settle the territory as much as possible to insure favorable results.  

First election in Kansas

In a rush to settle the Kansas Territory, northerners from New England and other anti-slavery areas began to rush into the territory to settle the region.  A group of anti-slavery activists estimated at 1200 individuals entered Kansas in July of 1854 and established the city of Lawrence which was to be the focal point of the anti-slavery movement in Kansas.  

Upon hearing of the influx of up to 20,000 northern ant-slavery supporters into Kansas a surge of individuals from the southern States began to converge on the territory.  In November of 1854 thousands of southerners, mostly from the Missouri border just to the east, converged on Kansas, armed with firearms in an attempt to vote on slavery’s behalf.  This resulted in almost half of the votes that were cast in the territorial election of 1854 being cast by those who were actual resident.  The vote resulted in pro-slavery advocates having won the election.  However, because of the blatant and obvious voter fraud associated with the election, the results were nullified and another election was held.

A second election was held in March of 1855; again pro slavery forces from Missouri and other southern states infiltrated the territory.  Some estimates have stated that between 3000 to 6000 individuals stormed the Kansas Territory to vote for the pro-slavery agenda.  The pro-slavery vote won the second election as well and the territory began to establish itself as pro-slavery.

Upon the victory of the pro-slavery faction in the election of 1855 the First Kansas Territorial Legislature enacted a number of laws, commonly known as the bogus laws.  These laws were highly discriminatory towards anti-slavery persons living within the Kansas Territory.  

The “bogus laws”, as they were called because northerners felt that they had; and rightly so, stolen the election, adopted the statutes of Missouri as the law in Kansas.  The Kansas Territorial Legislature also adopted what are known as the “black laws.” The black laws were enacted in order to “punish offenses against slave property.” The “offenses” included: aiding or assisting decoying a slave punishable, by death; raising or insurrection among slaves, punishable by death; printing or publishing any document calculated to produce “dangerous disaffection” among slaves, punishable by 5 years of hard labor; and even speaking or writing about the condemnation of slavery, punishable by 2 years of hard labor.

Bleeding Kansas

The result of the establishment of the Kansas Territory as a pro-slavery territory combined with the enactment of the “bogus laws” resulted in a powder keg of violence.  In May of 1856 a group of 800 men attacked the pro-slavery capitol of Lawrence, Kansas.  The mob burned buildings, destroyed the newspaper offices and In May 1856, an 800-man “posse” made up of border ruffians from Missouri sacked Lawrence, wrecking the newspaper offices and the Governor’s residence.  In response the abolitionist, John Brown; who would be immortalized in the Harpers Ferry massacre, and four of his sons abducted five pro-slavery settlers and murdered them within the view of their families.  Overall, the ongoing skirmishes associated with “bleeding Kansas” resulted in the deaths of 200 individuals.  

In Congress there was the same amount of civility.  The Kansas problem had caused anger between the representatives of both sides and after one speech given by Senator Charles Sumner, where he ridiculed southern congressmen of cavorting with “the harlot, slavery”, was bludgeoned with a cane by Congressman Preston Brooks.

Lincoln Douglas Debates of 1858

In the infamous Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, which propelled Lincoln to the presidency, the issue of slavery was the main topic at hand.  Lincoln used the example of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the resulting “bleeding Kansas” as stepping stone to stress the point about the spread of slavery.  Where Lincoln did not condemn slavery, at least not vocally at this point, he did take not to mention, with “bleeding Kansas” as an example, that the idea of slavery is so strong in the ideals of those who want it that they will go to far reaches to insure it dominion.  Lincoln noted that slavery must be checked because otherwise it would encompass the entire country.

Kansas as a Free State

Due to the overwhelming violence and obvious voter fraud associated with the Kansas-Nebraska Act the decision was finally made to admit Kansas as Free State in the Union.  The pro-slavery faction of Congress condemned the decision claiming, among other things, that it went against the elections that were held to decide the matter.  Congress stalled and Kansas was not admitted to the Union until 1861 when the southern States began to secede from the Union.

To read the Kansas-Nebraska Act please go to https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=28&page=transcript

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854: A Controversial Piece of Legislation

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a piece of legislation that allowed for the creation of two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska, by dividing the land of the Louisiana Purchase into two parts. While this may have seemed like a simple and straightforward action, it ended up being one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in American history. In this article, we will take a closer look at the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its impact on American history.

The Need for New Territories

At the time, the United States was expanding westward. The Louisiana Purchase, made in 1803, had vastly expanded America’s territory, but as more and more people moved west, it became clear that new territories were needed. This need was especially urgent after the discovery of gold in California in 1848, which led to a rush of settlers heading west in search of riches.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was introduced by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois in January 1854. Douglas was a strong advocate of popular sovereignty, the idea that the settlers of a new territory should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery within their borders. The act proposed that the issue of slavery in the new territories be decided by popular sovereignty.

The act was not without controversy. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 had prohibited slavery in any new territories north of latitude 36°30′, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act would repeal this compromise. This was seen as a betrayal by many in the North, who felt that their interests were being ignored in favor of the interests of the South.

Bleeding Kansas

The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act led to a rush of settlers heading west to stake their claim to the new territory. However, things quickly turned violent in Kansas, with pro- and anti-slavery settlers clashing in what became known as “Bleeding Kansas.” The violence included raids, arson, and even outright fighting between the two factions.

The impact of the Kansas-Nebraska Act was far-reaching. It helped to further inflame tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. The act also effectively destroyed the Democratic Party, which had been the dominant political force in the country up to that point.

Conclusion

While the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 may have seemed like a simple piece of legislation at the time, its impact on American history cannot be overstated. It helped to bring the issue of slavery to the forefront of national politics, ultimately leading to the outbreak of the Civil War. It is a reminder of the power of legislation and how even seemingly small actions can have far-reaching consequences.

Introduction

The Church of England, the largest church in England, recently voted on a measure that would allow women to become bishops. Despite the majority being in support of the measure, it ultimately failed due to voting rules. Here’s what you need to know about the situation.

Background

The issue of female bishops has been a point of contention in the Church of England for decades. In 1994, the church began allowing women to be ordained as priests. However, the issue of women in leadership roles has remained a subject of intense debate.

The Vote

In a widely anticipated vote, the Church of England’s General Synod voted on the measure to allow women to become bishops. While a solid majority, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, voted in favor of the measure, it ultimately failed due to voting rules requiring a two-thirds majority from three different voting groups: bishops, clergy, and laity.

Reactions

Many supporters of the measure were disappointed by the outcome, calling it a missed opportunity for progress. Some argue that the Church of England risks becoming increasingly out of touch with modern attitudes and values. Others, however, maintain that the vote was not about agreeing or disagreeing with women bishops, but rather about the proper process for making such a fundamental change to the church’s structure.

What’s Next

Many within the church are calling for a reassessment of the voting rules, arguing that the two-thirds majority requirement is too high. Some are also urging the church to have a broader conversation about the role of women in the church and the importance of gender equality.

Conclusion

The failure of the measure to allow women to become bishops in the Church of England highlights the ongoing debates about gender roles and gender equality in institutions across the world. Despite the setback, it is clear that the issue will continue to be an important one for the church and for society as a whole, as attitudes and beliefs continue to evolve.

A widely anticipated vote on the status of women in England’s largest church left the status quo intact.  Although a solid majority voted in favor of the measure allowing female bishops to serve the Church of England, the measure failed due to voting rules requiring a two-thirds majority from three different voting groups.

The Church of England, which has been an active force in Britain since it was first created by King Henry VIII in the 16th century, had few roles for women in its first several centuries.  While women were permitted to be nuns, they could not join the clergy and were not allowed into any church leadership positions. The first women priests were allowed into the church in 1992.

Anglican churches, which are churches outside of England that descended from the Church of England, have been substantially more progressive about allowing women into their clergy and church leadership positions.  Canadian, American, and Australian Anglican churches all allow for female bishops, and women have become increasingly common in these positions since first being allowed.

In order for the vote for female bishops to have passed, three different groups would have to approve the measure by a two-thirds vote—the laity (lay, or regular, people), the clergy (priests), and the bishop.  While nearly 90 percent of the bishops and over 70 percent of the clergy voted in favor of allowing female bishops, the shortfall occurred in the laity.  Just four more votes in favor of the measure from the lay voters would have changed the outcome of the election.

The vote was so close that some in England wondered if there could be a re-casting of ballots in the near future to see if any of the lay members might have changed their minds.  However, church rules allow for these measures to be voted on only once every five years, so the next opportunity for allowing women to become bishops won’t come until late 2017.

Currently, only about two percent of people in the United Kingdom attend church services regularly, and the vote against women bishops has some in the church worried that attendance will now suffer even more.

Since 3 in 4 Britons approved of the measure to allow women bishops in public opinion polling, church leaders are concerned that the vote will make them appear to be out of touch in spite of the fact that bishops and clergy voted overwhelmingly for women.  Both the outgoing and ingoing Archbishops of Canterbury are major proponents of the change, indicating that support within the Church of England for female bishops is strongest at the top.

The proposed new rule would still have allowed for some congregations to request a male bishop in order to oversee their female bishop if they considered themselves to be traditionalists.  This compromise, however, was not enough to placate traditionalist elements among the laity.

While many expected for the female bishops measure to pass in 2012, few doubt that it will pass in 2017.  “This is not an issue that is going to go away,” said the Archbishop of Canterbury after finding out the results of the vote.

Sources: bbc.co.uk, time.com

Introduction

The franchise owner of several IHOP restaurants has agreed to pay a $1 million settlement in a sexual discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit, brought by a class of 22 women, alleged that they had been sexually harassed at one of the franchisee’s restaurants. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The lawsuit alleged that a female manager at one of the IHOP restaurants owned by the franchisee had sexually harassed multiple female employees. The harassment reportedly included lewd comments, unwanted touching, and requests for sexual favors. The alleged behavior continued despite complaints from the victims.

The Settlement

The franchise owner agreed to a $1 million settlement in the lawsuit, which will be split among the 22 plaintiffs. As part of the settlement, the franchise owner also agreed to implement new policies and procedures to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace.

Reaction

The settlement has been hailed as a victory for the victims of sexual harassment and a reminder that such behavior will not be tolerated in the workplace. However, some activists and experts argue that $1 million is not a sufficient deterrent against sexual harassment and that more needs to be done to hold individuals and companies accountable for such behavior.

Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The settlement underscores the importance of preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Companies can take steps to prevent such behavior by establishing policies and procedures that promote a safe and respectful work environment. Training employees on sexual harassment prevention and response can also be effective in reducing the incidence of such behavior.

Conclusion

The settlement in the sexual discrimination lawsuit against the IHOP franchise owner provides a measure of justice for the victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. It is important that companies take proactive steps to prevent such behavior and ensure that employees are aware of their rights and that such behavior will not be tolerated. Only then can we create a workplace that is safe and respectful for all.

The franchise owner of several IHOP restaurants located throughout New Mexico has agreed to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit for the sum of $1 million.  The lawsuit alleged that a class of 22 women had been sexually harassed by a manager at one of the IHOP restaurants owned by the franchisee.

The group of women harassed by the manager, Lee Broadnax, ranged in age from women in their teens to those in their twenties.  The youngest harassment victim was just sixteen years old at the time the conduct took place.

Broadnax engaged in several different types of harassment with multiple employees.  In addition to making frequent attempts to kiss female employees, he also touched women who worked for him on their hips and buttocks.  He also exhibited behavior that the women being harassed found disturbing, like staring at women employees and licking his lips.

Sexual harassment was pervasive in the IHOP restaurant where the lawsuit stemmed from, according to the EEOC.  Broadnax was also accused of making comments about women’s body parts and stated explicitly that he wanted to take clothes off of one of his employees.

The settlement represents a victory for the 22 women who had been victimized by the manager in the case.  Strangely, this is not the first time that IHOP franchise owners have faced similar sexual harassment allegations this year.  Earlier in the year, IHOP appealed a lower court ruling that held the company liable for harassment by a manager at another restaurant.

In that case, young girls had also been harassed by a manager, and the women involved had made complaints against their harasser.  The attorneys for IHOP in that case maintained that because all employees, including managers, had attended sexual harassment seminars put on by the company, they were not liable for harassment coming from just one employee.

While that argument may have sounded convincing to IHOP, it didn’t convince the judge, who found the restaurant liable for the harassment the employees had experienced.  The court held that it was not enough to simply have an employee harassment and discrimination policy, or to train people regarding the policy—in order for a company to escape liability,  it must be able to demonstrate that it has actually enforced the policy when a complaint is made.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been pursuing discrimination and harassment cases more aggressively in the last several years, following a slowdown during the Bush administration.  In addition to pursuing sexual harassment allegations, gender discrimination and cases involving pregnancy discrimination are also ramping up as the EEOC continues to promote its mission of ending workplace discrimination for Americans.

IHOP has also agreed to include additional training regarding discrimination and harassment as part of its future employment training, and will provide employees with notice of the settlement.

Sources: uscourts.gov, eeoc.gov

Introduction

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently reached a settlement agreement with the Muskegon River Youth Home, which had an employment policy that discriminated against pregnant employees. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The Muskegon River Youth Home, a detention facility for juveniles in Michigan, had an employment policy that required employees to notify their supervisor as soon as they became pregnant and to complete a job modification request form. Failure to comply could result in termination. The EEOC alleged that this policy was discriminatory toward pregnant employees and violated federal law.

The Settlement

As part of the settlement, the youth home agreed to pay $41,500 to compensate the pregnant employees who were adversely affected by the policy. The youth home also agreed to provide training to its employees on pregnancy discrimination and to revise its employment policies to ensure compliance with federal law.

Reaction

The EEOC hailed the settlement as a victory for pregnant employees and a reminder to employers that discrimination against pregnant employees will not be tolerated. The case serves as a warning to other employers who have policies that discriminate against pregnant employees.

Preventing Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

Employers can take steps to prevent pregnancy discrimination in the workplace by ensuring that their employment policies are in compliance with federal law. Managers and supervisors should also be trained on how to recognize and prevent pregnancy discrimination, and employees should be educated on their rights under the law.

Conclusion

The settlement in the pregnancy discrimination case against the Muskegon River Youth Home serves as a reminder that discrimination against pregnant employees is illegal and will not be tolerated by the EEOC. Employers should take steps to ensure that their policies and practices are in compliance with federal law to prevent discrimination and protect the rights of all employees, including pregnant women.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced earlier this November that it has reached a settlement agreement with the Muskegon River Youth Home.  The youth home, which served as a detention facility for juveniles in the state of Michigan, had an employment policy that required employees to take particular steps as soon as they became pregnant.

Once an employee learned that they were going to have a baby, the employment policies and procedures handbook at the Muskegon River Youth home stated that she must notify the youth home immediately about the pregnancy.  After this notification, she was required to go to a doctor’s office and get a doctor’s note giving her permission to continue working in the youth home before she would be allowed to continue working.

If women at the Muskegon River Youth Home were unable to produce a doctor’s certificate, they were forced to go on a leave of absence throughout their pregnancy.  This leave of absence was unpaid. Women who were pregnant and unable to provide a doctor’s note were also required to continue using unpaid leave until they had not been pregnant for 30 days or more.

The reasoning behind this policy had to do with liability.  The Muskegon River Youth Home claimed that they simply wanted to avoid the possibility of lawsuits from pregnant women who had become sick or injured while on the job in part because of their pregnancies.

Workers from the Muskegon River Youth Home sued in district court, alleging violations of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prevents employers from engaging in discriminatory practices against pregnant women.

The EEOC announced its lawsuit in late September, and by early November a tentative settlement plan had already been decided upon.  Under the terms of the settlement, the EEOC will be able to monitor the activities of the Muskegon River Youth Home for evidence of continued pregnancy discrimination for a period of up to ten years.  The youth home will be required to make regular reports to the EEOC, as well as to immediately change the policy that led to the lawsuit.

According to the EEOC, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to treat pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees.  By requiring pregnant employees to obtain specific medical permission to continue working, which was not normally required for employees, the Muskegon River Youth Home put itself at odds with the PDA.  The EEOC has been cracking down on violations of this law over the last year, and it’s likely that there will be more PDA lawsuits in the next several months as this law continues to be enforced and interpreted.

There is some indication that the EEOC may also begin to pursue pregnancy discrimination related claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  The EEOC is already appealing in a Texas lactation discrimination case, claiming that both Title VII and the PDA can apply to cases where pregnancy related conduct is being discriminated against, because pregnancy is a condition that is dependent on the sex of the person carrying the baby.

Sources: eeoc.gov, uscourts.gov

Introduction

Señor Frog’s, a popular chain of Mexican restaurants in tourist areas, is facing a lawsuit filed by a group of nine claimants who allege that they were subjected to harassment and discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that top executives at the company not only condoned such behavior, but participated in it. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The claimants allege that they were subjected to repeated and flagrant harassment, discrimination, and assault while working at Señor Frog’s. They claim that the harassment occurred at the hands of management personnel, including top executives, and that the company failed to take appropriate action to address the issue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a complaint against the company alleging violations of federal law.

The Allegations

According to the EEOC filing, the harassment and discriminatory practices at Señor Frog’s were widespread and involved top executives at the company. The allegations include sexual harassment, age discrimination, and retaliation against employees who spoke out against the abusive behavior.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit seeks compensation for the harm caused to the claimants as a result of the harassment and discrimination they experienced at Señor Frog’s. The claimants are also seeking an injunction to prevent the company from engaging in such behavior in the future, as well as expanded employee training and oversight.

Reaction

The lawsuit has drawn attention to the issue of harassment and discrimination in the restaurant industry and the responsibility of employers to address and prevent such behavior. It serves as a reminder that all employees have the right to work in an environment free from harassment and discrimination, regardless of their position or industry.

Preventing Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace

Employers can take steps to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace by establishing clear policies and procedures, conducting training and education programs for employees, and creating a culture of respect and accountability. Managers and supervisors must also be trained on how to recognize and address instances of harassment and discrimination and ensure that appropriate action is taken.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against Señor Frog’s highlights the serious and harmful impact of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Employers have a responsibility to create a safe and respectful work environment, and failure to do so can result in legal action. It is important that companies take proactive steps to prevent and address harassment and discrimination, ensuring that all employees are treated with dignity and respect.

Señor Frog’s, a chain of Mexican restaurants associated with party-heavy tourist areas, is being sued by a group of nine claimants who say that they were subjected to flagrant and repeated harassment and discrimination.  According to the claimants, harassment and discriminatory practices occurred at the highest levels of the company.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing accused the restaurant owner and top executives of encouraging and even actively participating in harassment and assaults.

According to the complaint filed by the EEOC, during the time period from June 2007 to December 2008, at least nine employees of the Waikiki Señor Frog’s restaurant were verbally and physically harassed.

The young women involved in the lawsuit were all in their teens or twenties at the time that the alleged harassment occurred.  The complaint alleges that management would encourage underage employees to drink with them, and that they would also imply that they were getting the women drunk in order to have sex with them.

Managers at the Señor Frog’s branch were also accused of making demands for body shots to be served using the bodies of female bartenders or customers.  Some of these managers also are accused of having sex with customers during their shift, in front of female employees working under them.

Verbal harassment accusations were extensive, and included allegations that the restaurant’s owner told one employee that the way she moved in a skirt caused him to become aroused.  Sexual advances and demands for sexual intercourse were frequent according to the complaint.

In addition to harassing employees, the EEOC alleges that Señor Frog’s subjected them to a continuing pattern of employment discrimination at all levels of hiring and promotion.  Male bartenders were promoted into better positions with better hours even though more qualified female bartenders were being passed up, the complaint indicates.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made the accusations against Señor Frog’s earlier in November, stating that the extent of the harassment, as well as the high status of the harassers in the company, was what made them take the case.

Ordinarily, in a case where the harassment went as far as the restaurant owner and restaurant group, the EEOC would file the complaint against the parent company as well as the individual Hawaii unit of Señor Frog’s.  However, because the headquarters for the parent company of Señor Frog’s is located in Mexico, the EEOC has no jurisdiction and will not be able to sue the parent company in United States courts.

The harassment and discrimination experienced by the employees at Señor Frog’s is prohibited conduct according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This portion of the law made it a civil offense to discriminate against employees or create a hostile workplace environment through workplace harassment.  The EEOC is seeking punitive damages, lost wages, compensatory damages, and front pay for the women affected by the alleged harassment and discrimination.

Source: eeoc.gov

Virginia May Stop Shackling Pregnant Women in Labor

Shackling in Prison

The use of restraints in prisons has long been a point of controversy, with many arguing that it is cruel and inhumane treatment that can cause long-lasting negative effects on inmates. The situation becomes even more delicate when it comes to pregnant women in labor who are being restrained or shackled.

Current Shackling Practices

Currently, in many prisons and jails, pregnant women are still being subjected to a variety of restraints, even during their labor and delivery. These restraints include leg shackles, waist chains, and handcuffs, which can cause physical discomfort and also potentially be harmful to the health of the mother and child.

A New Rule in Virginia

Recently, Virginia proposed a new rule that would ban the use of restraints on pregnant women during labor and delivery. If this rule is approved, women in Virginia prisons and jails will no longer be shackled during this vulnerable time in their lives. The proposal has been praised by many advocates for women’s rights and the humane treatment of prisoners.

The Debate Around the Issue

The use of restraints on pregnant women has been a point of debate for many years. Supporters of the use of restraints argue that it is a necessary measure to ensure the safety of prison staff and to prevent escapes. However, opponents argue that it is an inhumane and unnecessary practice that can cause serious harm to the mother and child.

The Positive Impact of the New Rule

If Virginia approves the new rule, it will be a significant step forward in the treatment of pregnant women in prisons and jails. It will help to ensure that these women are not subjected to unnecessary and potentially harmful restraints during one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. It will also be a positive step forward in the fight for the humane treatment of prisoners, and in recognizing the unique needs of pregnant women.

Conclusion

The issue of shackling pregnant women in prisons is a serious one, and it is encouraging to see Virginia take steps to address it. If the new rule is approved, it will send a powerful message about the importance of treating prisoners with respect and dignity, and recognizing the unique needs of vulnerable populations. It is a reminder that even small steps can make a significant difference in the quality of life for those who are incarcerated.

Women who are pregnant or delivering a new baby will no longer be shackled or have waist chains applied, if Virginia approves a new set of rules for its prison systems.  Currently, Virginia prisons and jails are using a wide variety of restraints for prisoners that may include leg shackles and waist chains in addition to handcuffs.

While some prisons and jails have used these restraints only for women who are attending doctor’s visits for prenatal care, others have been significantly more severe.  Many women’s rights groups have been outraged by the fact that 33 states still allow women to be shackled even as they are giving birth, in spite of the safety risks this entails.

The new guidelines, if accepted, will require pregnant or birthing women to be unshackled at all times except for when they are being transported from one place to another.  At any time when they are in the hospital giving birth, they would be unrestrained if the guidelines are implemented as they read now.  Only handcuffs would be permitted for restraint of pregnant prisoners at times of transport.

According to opponents of restraints, restrained jail inmates are significantly more likely to miscarry.  Because of the changes to a woman’s balance that occur during pregnancy and the fact that restraints make it more difficult to regain balance, pregnant women are also more likely to suffer from falls when they are restrained.

Even after a woman’s baby has been delivered, leg shackles can actually lead to a significantly higher risk of hemorrhage or blood clots.  The new guidelines have been proposed by Virginia’s Board of Corrections in response to a request for a consistent policy on the shackling of laboring prisoners in the state’s jails.

The Virginia legislature may be voting on a state law that would supercede these rules and would also apply them not only to jails, but also to prisons.  According to the proposed law, additional restraints could be used for a pregnant woman who posed a genuine flight risk.  While this is rare—the vast majority of pregnant women will stay in the hospital even if they are completely unrestrained during labor—if additional restraints were needed, the sheriff’s office or prison official would have to explain why.

Sheriffs in Virginia have so far been opposed to both forms of the new guidelines.  According to the sheriffs, giving information about the shackling of prisoners could potentially compromise their security procedures.

Most pregnant women in Virginia’s jails are serving sentences of less than one year for non-violent offenses.  If the law proposed passes the Virginia legislature and is signed into effect by Virginia’s governor, it will become the 18th state to limit the extent to which pregnant prisoners may be shackled during labor and birth.  Advocates of these laws point to evidence that shows that pregnant women are among the least likely prisoners to be violent toward prison guards or medical professionals.