Quote Originally Posted by OttifantSir View Post
I have just watched a news cast that made me think a bit. As this case is probably very country-specific to Norway, I list this here instead of in the Politics forum:

A substitute worker in our country has the right to get a tenure if that sub has been filling the same position for four years or more.

A mother has the right to take an extended, paid, leave of absence after she has given birth.

The specifics of this case was this: A female substitute teacher had been working a while in her position when she gave birth. She took the extended leave of absence. Now she has been working again for some time, reaching the limit of four years or more needed to be granted a tenure. But the employer, in this case the commune/county says she has to work nine more months to be eligible for tenure due to her leave of absence since the first rule says she has to have been performing her duties continuously for four years. Obviously she hasn't done this, so on one hand she isn't being discriminated (in the legal sense), on the other hand, she has been employed for four years, so she is eligible for tenure.

It really made me think. Is this really a case of the decision-makers seeing her as a substitute (filling in for one worker) then taking an extended leave of absence (creating the need for yet another substitute) and fearing that they might end up in this situation once more, therefore saying she has to catch up with her employment record/work an additional nine months to be eligible for tenure just to be sure they get what they pay for? Or is it just plain and simple old-fashioned thinking that women shouldn't be working?

However, my question to this forum is: Do you see this as being discrimination, or just common sense?

I see both sides of this case, but I am unable to make up a decision on it.
Basedon what you posted, I would not view this a Sex Discrimination, but more on simply not complying with therules and regulations of her job.
If the rules says specfificly 4 years or more of cotinuos servce, and she leftbefore that for her pregnancy, then no, she did not complete the time frame required for her tenure
But my reply is based soley on the remarks you posted, I do not based on this feel sex discrimination has anything to do with this, to me it is simply am tter of her taking early time offand being told shen eeds more time to qualify for tenure based on her early request for leave of absence
If she was fired or let go due to this yes then it could be view as discrimination, I do not believe any court would say she was discriminated against simply because she elft early to give birth and had to work an extendned period of time for her tenure