"Lawyers representing the Missouri Department of Transportation want you to believe an unborn baby was working for the state during a fatal work zone crash, all in order to have a lawsuit dismissed.The bizarre opinion is in response to a lawsuit over the November 2021 tragedy that killed two MoDOT employees, one of whom was pregnant.“First of all, it’s illogical. How would somebody who hasn’t even been born yet work for you?” he said. “But if they were to get someone to buy that, then that means your case is dismissed out of St. Louis County, go to the comp system, where they’re going to take a different position, just like they did initially.”Workers’ comp already denied Anderson’s family claim because Kaitlyn was not married and had no dependents. Mundwiller says workers’ comp will certainly deny an unborn baby.“What they’re hoping is they don’t pay anything,” he said.MoDOT did not have a protective truck in place that day, even though it’s a department policy. That’s the focus of a lawsuit that, Kaitlyn’s mom says, MoDOT keeps avoiding."
31 January 2023
Can an unborn fetus be a state employee?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Working without a protective truck is a violation of established policy for which they were mentally fired by the big boss back at headquarters. Therefore the were not employees at the time of the accident and furthermore trespassing on an active work zone and interfering with state employees. These bastards should be writing fairy tale books for kids with their talent for twisting reality. Grrrrr
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
Good case to show the insanity of the personhood-at-conception bullshit.
ReplyDeleteA fetus is not a person, just like a corps is not a person. They're the bookends of life.
Also, the state engaging in child labor is not a good defense.
Aside from the personhood nonsense, this is also a case showing that lawyers will say anything to win a case, even if their argument has no basis in reality. "Yes, but based on an outlandish reading of the text of the law, you could argue that...." does not make it what happened, and should be a breach of ethics in the profession.
Was the fetus getting minimum wage? If not, it's owed them, plus penalties.
ReplyDeleteIf the fetus were a state employee, the state would be confessing to a federal crime.
ReplyDeleteEvery employer is required to confirm a legitimate social security number for every employee prior to the start of employment. Governmental agencies, even more so.
If they do not have a SSN on record for this 'employee', they have broken federal law. Or, they have to admit the fetus wasn't an employee after all. But that seems to be a step too far for them.
Considering that we have rather strict child-labor laws, and an unborn fetus is very clearly not 'of legal majority', they cannot be a legal employee under any circumstances.
ReplyDeleteDiffernt but the movie Avanti! comes to mind:
ReplyDelete"Postpone, nothing. Batman is here.
We don't need an export licence.
- We're going to bypass all that bull.
- Bypass? How can you?
No sweat. We're appointing your father
commercial attaché to the embassy.
That entitles him to the rights
and immunities of a diplomat.
- Wait. You are going to appoint him...
- Why not?
- A dead man?
- Just proves that we don't discriminate
for reasons of race, creed,
colour or... state of health.
You mean we handle him
just like a diplomatic pouch?
You bet. He goes right
through customs, sealed coffin,
no inspection, no formalities at either end.
Isn’t the term “unborn fetus” redundant?
ReplyDelete