ACLU threatens to sue Toys ‘R Us over breastfeeding offense
Posted
September 15, 2006 at
2:52 pm by
Jessica
According to the New York Sun, a woman who was breastfeeding in a NYC Toys ‘R Us was asked by several sales associates to move to their private nursing room in the store’s basement. The controversy stems from how and why she was asked. Toys ‘R Us is claiming that the associates merely asked her if she would be more comfortable in the private area. The mother claims that they told her breastfeeding in the middle of so many families and children was not appropriate. By the time this alleged snafu escalated to what might have elicited further action, the mother was done breastfeeding and went about her business.
The New York Civil Liberties Union says that if TRU doesn’t educate their employees and offer a public apology, they will sue them for violating this woman’s civil rights. The kicker is that in their own press release listed on the ACLU website, they threaten to sue for “compensation”.
FOR WHAT?! At most this women was offended. She was not evicted from the store, she was not denied being able to shop there. Is this what we’ve come to? Should we compensate people just for being offended?
If what TRU is claiming to be true, that she was simply asked if she would feel more comfortable in a more isolated location (which I know some breastfeeding women would be), is that an actionable offense? Perhaps many associates asked, just like how you get asked by 5 salespeople if they can help you, but so what? One associate may not know that somebody has already approached them. It happens all the time.
What exactly are her damages?
I support civil rights, in fact I think we should have more rights and less government intrusion into our lives, yet the NYCLU is contridicting their original intentions by taking away one’s right to be ignorant and say something offensive and naive. Holding corporations hostage for the political intelligence and savvyness of their employees is outrageous. Ideally, TRU probably should include training on the right to breastfeed in public, but are they to be held accountable for a particular person’s sensitivity too?
I say, if you don’t like a rude associate, don’t continue to shop at such a place. Allow consumers to “punish” TRU if they think that’s appropriate, but must we use breastfeeding as a tool to push social and political censorship of unpopular opinion or saying something that is seemingly innocuous, but offensive to those with a particular agenda?
From www.nysun.com
Tags: ACLU, breastfeeding, civil-liberties, Social Issues, toys-r-us |
14 Responses to “ACLU threatens to sue Toys ‘R Us over breastfeeding offense”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. sirbarrett said:
September 15, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
The female breast must be the most political bodypart in the world!
Exactly: I think sometimes customers demand too much, and businesses try to hard to please the customer. If we have a free market then we will have other freedoms of choice and we should use them strategically as consumers. More freedom of speech, more breasts, more food!
2. Cassie said:
September 16, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
I’ve heard that the woman wants monetary compensation no matter what, I think that’s what it boils down to. I don’t care if women BFIP but I honestly think a lot of them do it for the attention and she’s making such a stink for the attention as well.
3. pj said:
September 16, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
Oh yes, Cassie, women do it for the attention. Look at me, look at my breasts. Aren’t a perfect mother?
YOU obviously have had no formal relationship with breastmilk–either produced any or had any pass your lips. I suppose all the bottle feeding moms are trying to get attention too.
I was harassed so much several years ago that I stop feeding my daughter in public after she was 2 months old. And no, I never bared my breasts and was always discreet. It is not about the breastfeeding. It is about someone (usually a man) being jealous of a baby getting a breast or (unfortunately a woman) who has MAJOR image issues about her ability to lactate. And that same woman is usually hanging out of her clothes in the mall.
Please, please stop hurting mothers and babies and attaching sick ideas to nutrition.
I am SO happy this happened. When she does get some money, maybe fewer moms and babies will be harrassed in public.
And it is all about money, isn’t it? That is why there are so many barriers to breastfeeding for American women.
Try this reading about this:
http://monkeyfist.com/articles/331
Warmly.
PJ
4. Jay said:
September 16, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Thanks for the comment, I have updated my post with a link to this post and a small quote. Looks like we are on the same page. Thanks, Jay
5. Annie said:
September 17, 2006 @ 12:19 am
Do you believe people have a right to compensation when their legal rights are violated? Under New York law, women have the right to breastfeed anyway they are legally allowed to be. Five separate employees tried to make her either stop breastfeeding or relocate. Then, one called store security. After that, she tried to speak to the store manager, but what not permitted to.
I breastfeed my son whenever and whereever he needs me to. I do this because it is best for him. Unlike many nursing pairs, we never managed to master the art of always being discreet, so there are times when he moves and my breast is rather visible. This was hard for me to deal with for a long time, and, deep down, still is, because of a lifetime of being bombarded with the message that anytime a breast shows, it must be sexual.
That is completely untrue. The primary purpose of a woman’s breast is to nourish and comfort her young. I know this, and I see how much good being freely breastfed has done for my child. So, a part of me is proud when people notice because I believe it is helping things change slowly so that maybe, just maybe, when my grandchildren are being breastfed in public, their mother can feel completely at ease. Because, really, it is about the mother and the child, and she shouldn’t have to worry about other people casting condemning or, worse, lustful looks and comments her way when she is nurturing her child.
So, I hope Ms. Meyerson does draw a lot of attention to this critical issue, and I hope Toys R Us and other companies are forced to take notice and start training their employees to, at the very least respect,their customers’ legal rights.
6. Cristina said:
September 17, 2006 @ 2:27 am
I’m going to take the word of the mother on this one and assume that the TRU reps didn’t merely “ask her if she would be more comfortable in the private area” but actually either told her outright or implied that her public breastfeeding was inappropriate. If what the mother said is true and she was made to feel bad for bf in public, I personally don’t think that they should be suing for COMPENSATION; however, I do think that that woman has every right (and by law she does have the right) to bf in public without being harrassed. Furthermore, I don’t believe that she should have to discontinue shopping there just because the associates are rude. That puts the burden on the mother who did nothing wrong. Instead, I agree with you that these associates need better training. They need to know the law, and they need to know that whether or not associates or customers are uncomfortable with the site of a woman bf, that they just need to get over it because she has every right to sit there and feed her baby when he’s hungry.
What this lawsuit will do is draw more attention to the fact that women have a right to bf in public. And for that reason, I see the ACLU threatening a lawsuit as a good thing.
7. Cristina said:
September 17, 2006 @ 2:30 am
oops that should have been “sight” not “site.” It’s WAY to late to be up blogging. I’m barely even coherent right now.
8. Prescott said:
September 17, 2006 @ 7:37 am
“Do you believe people have a right to compensation when their legal rights are violated? Under New York law, women have the right to breastfeed anyway they are legally allowed to be.”
Taking the word of the mother and the ACLU at face value, morally and ethically the TRU employees were in the wrong. They shouldn’t have made those remarks, and the woman was in her right to complain.
BUT. Legally, her rights would have been violated at the instance she left the front entrance under the guiding hand of security. Instead, she was told to leave, and she refused, finished breastfeeding, and went about her business. Where is the violation? If I were giving a speech in a public square, and protesters decided to march and shout me down but I raised my voice and continue to speak, is my right to freedom of speech being violated? Of course not.
9. Jessica said:
September 17, 2006 @ 8:05 am
10. The Mommy Blawger said:
September 17, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
The problem with laws like the one that the State of New York has, is that they have no “teeth.” I.e., they protect a breastfeeding woman from being arrested, fined, or evicted; but they do not impose any kind of sanction on a person or entity who violates or attempts to violate the woman’s/baby’s rights under the law.
While under the New York statute (though I am not an expert on New York law) Ms. Meyerson is not entitled to compensation, the point of such a request for compensation is *not* to compensate has for harm, per se, but to put some muscle behind the law.
I’m sure the lawyers at the ACLU don’t really expect to get compensation, but to ask for it is a canny negotiating tactic.
11. Jessica Carlson said:
September 17, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
What you’re saying here makes me extremely nervous. “Attempts to violate”? We don’t live under Taliban rule or Communist China or Fascist Sudan, that’s why the ACLU also takes the unpopular position to support those crazy Fred Phelps a-holes that protest American soldier’s funerals, insisting their death is a punishment as a result of allowing homosexuality to exist.
What boggles my mind is that people like you don’t understand that if you punish people for their thoughts, opposing speech, words or even ignorant faux paus, then what you get is oppression. The irony is, if you succeed in policing people’s societal faux paus (and if that is what truly happened and we don’t know that yet), then you are setting a precedence for not being able to do things you (as in “you” generally speaking, not you specifically) want to publicly denounce like the war, formula feeding, disposable diapers…whatever.
You cannot legally stop people from feeling uncomfortable around breastfeeding moms, no matter how absurd it may be, it’s a free country last time I checked.
12. The Mommy Blawger said:
September 18, 2006 @ 9:35 am
Whoa, Jessica, you go to far. When I said “attempts to violate” I by no means mean that the law should punish people for their thoughts, feelings, or even words, particularly those of a private citizen. Because an individual does not have the power to perform the acts which the law prohibits (i.e. arresting, fining, evicting, etc.), they would not fall under the provisions of such a law.
I was thinking more of a situation where a person, *acting on behalf of a business, organization, or governmental entity*, attempts to violate the law, for instance by attempting to eject the nursing woman, although the woman refuses to leave. Just because the “attempt” was not successful, through no fault of the actor, does not make the attempt any less a violation of the law. Our society punishes people all the time for “attempt”, for crimes both major and minor.
A law without “teeth”, i.e. consequences, civil or criminal, creates no incentive to stop people from breaking the law. What if every time you ran a read light, a police officer could pull you over, but could only tell you, “That was illegal. Don’t do it again!”.
I agree, if you try to fine individuals for asking a nursing mom to “cover up”, you are getting into a sticky grey area there. What if I scold teenagers for wearing those annoying low-cut pants with their thongs showing? Actually, that would be the *opposite* of the Talliban situation, wouldn’t it?
13. Jessica said:
September 18, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
According to TRU, there was no attempt to eject the nursing mother from the store, although it is her word against there’s. Personally, I am not going to automatically take her side just because she breastfeeds:
http://blog.imperfectparent.com/2006/09/18/toys-r-us-issues-formal-response-to-aclu/
Furthermore, an offer or explanation of a private nursing area is not a crime and is not comparable to “attempted” violations such as attempted assault, battery or robbery. To suggest as much is a hyperbole. I cannot think of a minor “offense” that that would be comparable, can you?
This woman just may think of herself as a victim and therefore is one.
14. cutler said:
September 20, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
The dumbass should’ve taken a bottle. End of story. Whiiny bitch!