From the History Channel:
... Ruth Bader married Martin David Ginsburg, whom she had met at Cornell, shortly after receiving her bachelor’s degree in 1954. She had her first child, Jane, in 1955. At the time, she worked at a Social Security office in Lawton, Oklahoma, near where her husband, who was in the U.S. Army, had been posted. She had been rated for a GS-5 job, but when she mentioned she was pregnant, she was given a GS-2 job as a typist. It was her first experience with on-the-job discrimination because of her gender. While working in the Social Security office, she also became aware of how hard it was for Native Americans to receive Social Security. Both forms of discrimination stuck with her and helped form the basis of her future career. ...
May the current treatment of employees at all components of SSA -- FOs, OHO, in particular -- inspire a whole battalion of future RBGs.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note Ruth Bader Ginsburg connection with Oklahoma. Another connection of Ginsburg to Oklahoma is through the 1976 Supreme Court case of Craig v Boren. At that time Oklahoma had odd liquor laws. Females could buy 3.2 beer at the age of 18 but males had to be 21. Curtis Craig, a fraternity member at Oklahoma State at the time sued the then Governor of Oklahoma, David Boren for a determination.
ReplyDeleteCraig's Oklahoma attorney was Fred Gilbert, a Tulsa Patent and Copyright attorney. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was interested in the case and it has been reported that she wrote the brief. They won in the Supreme Court.
Curtis Craig went to law school and became an attorney. About two years ago he gave a talk about the case complete with photos of Fred Gilbert, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and himself before the oral arguments.
@ 6:09...yeah, the ability to work from home with little/no oversight and easily achievable production targets. That's the type of harsh conditions that lead to change. lol.
ReplyDelete@250, bitter much? People are working harder than ever at home under less than ideal conditions. Sure some things are much better but some things aren't. We are all trying to do the best we can. Why don't you try to be part of the solution instead of looking to cause problems.
ReplyDeleteNow, now. 2:50 may be a future SCOTUS someday.
ReplyDelete@2:50 PM
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's super easy to listen to, digest and summarize thirty to ninety minutes of (rambling, often nonsensical) testimony, review, digest and analyze hundreds to thousands of pages of medical records (themselves often full of rambling and nonsensical inconsistencies), and use all of this draft ten to fifteen pages of legal and factual analysis, as well as analysis of any medical opinions, all within 3 to 10.5 hours per case (on average, and depending on the case type). And it gets even easier when the cases are poorly worked up, when the instructions consist of 30 pages of random snippets of documents cut-and-pasted into each box, and so on.
If you think you can hack it, then by all means, give it a shot. Most can't, and I suspect, based on your tone, that you couldn't even get past the screening process to get hired.
She was a rare breed. She saw injustice and strive to improve the lives of others and herself. She constantly faced challenges but met the head on. I can't say the same for newer employees. They want the corner office---when the office is open. Glad I left.
ReplyDelete