No Shirt, No Shoes, No Pregnant Pee Breaks

If you have to take a pee break while you're pregnant, you better take a look at the sign above the door. If it says "restaurant only for patrons," they mean it.

According to the New York Post:

A Long Island woman is suing Hammerstein Ballroom management for refusing to allow her to use the restroom even though she begged a building supervisor that she was 35 weeks pregnant and was about to pee in her pants.

Because they refused? She peed in her pants. Nice.

There have been arguments here before about what a pregnant woman is entitled to receive and many feel that "special treatment" is wrong.

But is it really so outrageous to bend your rules a little for a woman who has a 6-pound weight sitting on her full bladder?


It sounds a bit like that old insult, "I would not pee on you if you were on fire," except in this case, there is no opportunity to pee at all.

Seriously, those people at Hammerstein must carry some kind of contempt for all humankind to allow themselves to be so cruel.

And while the "pain and humiliation" caused by peeing in her pants aren't unique to this pregnant woman -- after all, what pregnant woman hasn't dribbled a bit? -- it's impossible to condone such a cruel and inflexible policy.

Pregnant women may or may not need special treatment, but letting them pee in the restroom when they have to go is not "special," it is decent. If making that leap into decency is too difficult, perhaps they ought not be in the business of serving the public.

According to the Post, the manager told her:

"There's a bathroom at the end of the block." 

It's hard to believe that anyone could be that cruel and they deserve to be sued.

Do you think she should be suing?


Image via Facebook


Read More >