Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

February-18-99

Mother Alleges Job Discrimination

New York lawyer Joann Trezza recently filed suit against her employer, The Hartford Inc. insurance agency, charging that her superiors repeatedly passed her over for promotions because she is married and has children.

Trezza charges that those promotions consistently were granted to either single women or men with kids, and that her supervisors claimed that women, and especially mothers, are not good planners. Trezza's lawyer Steven Eckhaus explained, "If you're a man with children, employers see you as more responsible more capable of doing your job. If you're a woman with children, many employers see it as a problem."

Although other parental-discrimination cases have been filed, they remain few, perhaps because most potential plaintiffs are not adequately protected under current discrimination laws. Only a few states and cities address familial status in their workplace discrimination laws, and federal law does not address the issue.

Since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination based on marital or family status, many companies are free to discriminate with impunity. Firms that are suspected of discriminating against mothers more so that fathers could face sex discrimination charges, although this charge is difficult to prove.

President Clinton called on Congress to pass a federal law protecting caregivers from workplace discrimination during his State of the Union address last month, but tangible progress on this goal has yet to be seen.

Discrimination issues consultant Craig Platt says that he has frequently seen cases where companies grant positions requiring relocation and travel to single employees because it is cheaper to relocate a single individual than a whole family, and because employees with children are perceived as less flexible.

Judy Clark is the president of a national human resources consulting firm called HR Answers. She noted, "I don't know if it will ever be as blatant as, 'You've got kids, I won't hire you. It will be more subtle than that: 'You aren't working as hard; you aren't putting in the extra effort.'"

Donna Lenhoof, a lawyer for the National Partnership for Women and Families in Washington, D.C., argues that effective discrimination law should test whether an employee made an "individual determination" about an employees' skills, or whether the employers' determination was based on an unfair assumption that parents are by definition less productive or willing.

Susan Meisinger, senior vice president of the Society for Human Resource Management, believes that the labor market is too tight for anti-parent discrimination to exist, at least on a large scale. "The whole trend has been for greater flexibility, and to allow for greater work-life balance," she said.

Media Resources: Christian Science Monitor - February 16, 1999


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

8/28/2015 Alaska Court Protects Abortion Access for Low-Income Women - The Alaska Superior Court struck down a state law yesterday that would have severely limited abortion access for low-income women in Alaska. The state's Superior Court also struck down a Department of Health and Social Services regulation that placed narrow specifications on Medicaid coverage for abortions, requiring that Medicaid-funded abortions be determined by a physician to be "medically necessary." Last year, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood sued on behalf of the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, claiming that the narrow definition of "medically necessary" arbitrarily established conditions designed to restrict the ability of low-income women to access abortion services. The law was temporarily blocked last July by an Alaskan state court judge. Superior Court Judge John Suddock ordered yesterday that the state be blocked from implementing this regulation, ruling that it placed an undue burden on low-income women seeking abortion services in Alaska. "By providing health care to all poor Alaskans except women who need abortions, the challenged regulation violates the state constitutional guarantee of 'equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law'," the ruling read. "We applaud the superior court for striing down these cruel restrictions on women's health and rights that violate the Alaska Constitution," said Chris Charbonneau, CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands. . . .
 
8/27/2015 Los Angeles Mayor Announces Model Gender Equity Directive - On Women's Equality Day Eric Garcetti, the Mayor of Los Angeles, signed a progressive and inclusive executive directive to take a major step toward gender equity for the city and to be a model for other cities. . . .
 
8/26/2015 Saudi Women Prepare to Vote for the First Time - The fight for gender equality is making slow but notable progress in Saudi Arabia, where women will be allowed to vote for the first time in upcoming December elections. This shift in Saudi law came in 2011, when a royal decree announced that women would be allowed to vote and run in local elections beginning in December of 2015. . . .