Skip to content

Workforce

Tag: Title VII

Posted on January 17, 2019June 29, 2023

An Expensive Lesson on Religious Accommodations

A federal court jury in Miami has awarded a hotel dishwasher $21.5 million after concluding that her employer failed to honor her religious beliefs by repeatedly scheduling her on Sundays, and then firing her.The hotel argued that it had no idea that she was a missionary or had requested Sunday off. Her lawyer, however, disagreed. “There were letters in [her personnel] file and her pastor went down there.”

According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel, Marie Jean Pierre is a member of the Soldiers of Christ Church, a Catholic missionary group that helps the poor. She claimed that she hold her employer that she needed Sundays off for her missionary work. The hotel accommodate her for the first three years of her employment, but then began scheduling her on Sundays. After she advised that she would have to quit, the company again accommodated her scheduling request for another six years. Then, however, the hotel again changed her schedule to include Sundays. Pierre then provided a letter from her pastor explaining her religious need for the time off. The hotel, however, refused and ultimately fired her for unexcused absences.

Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. An accommodation would pose an undue hardship if it would cause more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business. Factors relevant to undue hardship may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.

Scheduling changes, voluntary substitutions, and shift swaps are all common accommodations for employees who need time off from work for a religious practice. It is typically considered an undue hardship to impose these changes on other employees involuntarily. However, the reasonable accommodation requirement can often be satisfied without undue hardship where a volunteer with substantially similar qualifications is available to cover.

In other words, permitting Pierre to take every Sunday off may have imposed an undue hardship, depending on the nature of her work performed and her job duties. Other employees could have agreed to move shifts around to cover for her, but employers cannot force such scheduling changes. In Pierre’s case, however, the fact that the hotel appears to have accommodated her for eight years would weigh heavily in favor of the reasonableness of the accommodation.

In plain English, there might be a way around granting time off for an employee to observe a religious practice, but do you want to risk the inevitable (and expensive) lawsuit?

Also read: 5.1 Million Reasons to Keep Religion Out of Your Workplace

Legalities aside, this issue asks a larger question. What kind of employer do you want to be? Do you want to be a company that promotes tolerance or fosters exclusion? The former will help create the type of environment that not only mitigates against religious discrimination, but spills over into the type of behavior that helps prevent unlawful harassment and other liability issues. If you can grant the accommodation, why not do so? And if you have granted it, why take it away?

Posted on November 26, 2018June 29, 2023

Avoiding Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

pregnant employee

News broke in early 2018 that Walmart was facing a potential class-action lawsuit in New York for allegations of pregnancy discrimination.Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

This lawsuit is one of several nationwide that claim that some of the nation’s largest businesses are systematically punishing pregnant employees with discriminatory policies.

Employers are facing increased exposure and liability for pregnancy discrimination in the workplace claims. The number of pregnancy discrimination claims filed annually with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been steadily rising for two decades and is hovering near an all-time high. In 2017, more than 3,174 cases of pregnancy discrimination were filed with the EEOC.

The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it makes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions unlawful. The act covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. Women who are pregnant or affected by related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations. The law’s protections include:

Hiring and working conditions: An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of pregnancy, pregnancy-related conditions, or based on the prejudices of co-workers or customers. The act prohibits discrimination when it comes to working conditions, including pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, firing and any other condition of employment.

Pregnancy and maternity leave: An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee’s ability to work. For example, if an employer does not require its employees to submit a doctor’s statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may not require employees affected by pregnancy to provide this documentation.

Pregnancy and temporary disability: An employee that is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy must be treated the same as any other temporarily disabled employee.

Health insurance: Any health insurance provided by an employer must cover expenses for pregnancy-related conditions on the same basis as costs for other medical conditions. Pregnancy-related expenses should be reimbursed exactly as those incurred for other medical conditions.

Fringe benefits: Benefits must be the same for pregnancy as other medical conditions. If an employer provides any benefits to workers on leave, the employer must provide the same benefits for those on leave for pregnancy-related conditions, including accrual and crediting of seniority, vacation calculation, pay increases and temporary disability benefits.

Further, it is unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on pregnancy or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding or litigation under Title VII.

Although pregnancy itself is not considered a disability, some pregnant workers may be eligible for additional protection under the amended Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act due to conditions related to pregnancy. The ADAAA applies to employers with 15 or more workers.

Affordable Care Act

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers must provide two things to employees for one year after a child’s birth: (1) a reasonable amount of time to express milk each time that she needs to express milk; and (2) a location to express breast milk (not a bathroom) that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public.

Employers are not required to compensate nursing mothers during breaks to express milk, but if an employee has compensated breaks and she uses them to express milk, then she must be compensated in a similar way.

The ACA provides an “undue hardship” exemption for certain employers that employ fewer than 50 employees. An undue hardship will be found if the requirement imposes on the small employer significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the employer’s business.

Importantly, the ACA provides a “floor” not a “ceiling” for regulation in this area. States remain free to adopt laws that provide additional protections beyond those provided in the ACA.

Best Practices

In some instances, employers may claim that excluding pregnant or fertile women from certain jobs is lawful due to a bona fide occupational qualification defense, or BFOQ. This defense, however, is extremely narrow and the employer must show that pregnancy actually interferes with an employee’s ability to perform the job based on objective, verifiable skills required by the job.

Employers have rarely been able to establish a pregnancy-based BFOQ. Liability under the federal and state laws can be avoided with the following best practices:

• Effectively train managers on applicable laws, workplace policies, and how to respond to requests for assistance and accommodation.

• When complaints occur, respond promptly.

• Implement strong policies against pregnancy discrimination and harassment.

• Evaluate leave policies to ensure restrictive provisions or practices do not discriminate on the basis of pregnancy or related medical conditions.

• Evaluate any workplace accommodation policies and ensure they are available to workers with pregnancy-related impairments.

• Never require — explicitly or constructively — a pregnant employee to take leave, light duty or other work accommodations that she does not want or did not request.

• Make sure policies and facilities comply with breastfeeding requirements under the ACA.

• Check state and local laws for additional requirements.

Jay Starkman is the CEO of Engage PEO, a professional employer organization providing HR outsourcing to small and mid-sized businesses across the United States. Camille Cooper is the assistant general counsel and HR consultant for Engage PEO.

Posted on October 31, 2018June 29, 2023

When You Employ a Satanist

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

“Rosemary’s Baby,” the classic 1968 horror film, tells the story of a pregnant woman who (spoiler alert: correctly) assumes that a satanic cult wants her baby.

What does “Rosemary’s Baby” have to do with employment law?

In honor of Halloween, I bring you the story of Irving Cortez-Hernandez, a “Catholic-Satanist” who prayed to the Devil for his pregnant co-worker to miscarry, and as a result lost both his job and his religious discrimination lawsuit.

Cortez worked as an inside sales representative for Centennial Puerto Rico, selling wireless and broadband telecommunications services to customers in one of its mall stores.

During his employment, Cortez complained to HR that one of his co-workers, Lymarie Torres, had skimmed commissions from his sales. During HR’s investigation of the theft allegations, Torres unloaded about behavior by Cortez that one could only describe as downright frightening.

  • He would speak in a weird language and, when questioned, would explain that he was praying to Satan, or that the Devil had ordered him to speak in tongues.
  • He would threaten Torres with satanic rituals, including during her pregnancy to induce a miscarriage.
  • He told employees that Satan protected him, and that they should not mess with him.
  • He threatened Torres with comments such as, “Today I feel like killing you,” and others with, “Today I [feel like/would/will] kill someone.”
  • He would tell co-workers that “when the Devil is inside of him, there is no stopping him.”

Not surprisingly, Centennial fired him. Slightly less surprisingly, Cortez sued for religious discrimination.

In Cortez-Hernandez v. Centennial Puerto Rico (D.P.R. 11/18/2010), the district had little difficulty dismissing Cortez’s lawsuit. He claimed that Centennial terminated him because of his satanic religious beliefs. The court didn’t buy it, concluding that Centennial fired him because of his offensive and threatening comments and behavior, not his religion.

That said, there is no rule that Title VII only protects traditional religions. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. According to the EEOC:

The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

Thus, if Satanism is a “sincerely held religious belief” (and, by all accounts, it appears to be), then Title VII protects from workplace discrimination those who practice it. What Title VII does not protect, however, is using your religion as a justification for harassing or threatening others. Hence, Cortez’s lost-cause lawsuit.

Happy Halloween, y’all.

Posted on October 30, 2018June 29, 2023

Abortion Discrimination = Pregnancy Discrimination

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Is there a more controversial topic than abortion?

As controversial and divisive as it might be, the law is pretty clear that an employer cannot fire an employee for having one.

In the EEOC’s 2015 Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, the agency made its position clear:

Title VII prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. Thus, an employer may not discriminate against a woman with a medical condition relating to pregnancy or childbirth and must treat her the same as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work but are not affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.… Title VII protects women from being fired for having an abortion or contemplating having an abortion.

The courts universally support the EEOC’s position. It’s been the law of the 6th Circuit for nearly 20 years, and the 3rd Circuit for 10.

Yes, there are limited exceptions. The First Amendment, for example, might protect religious institutions that take adverse actions against an employee because of an abortion.

For the most part, you need understand that whether you agree with a woman’s right to have an abortion, abortion discrimination equals pregnancy discrimination, and firing an employee who has (or expresses an intent to have) an abortion is no different than firing that employee because of her pregnancy.

Posted on October 2, 2018June 29, 2023

‘I’m Going to Need Every Saturday Off; Is That Gonna Be a Problem?’

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Darrell Patterson had worked in Walgreens’ 24/7 call center for six years without incident.

He claims Walgreens fired him for skipping an emergency training session held on a Saturday.

He’s a Seventh-day Adventist, and it’s against his religion to work on the Sabbath (from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday). Until his firing, they had worked cooperatively to schedule around this religious prohibitions, without incident.

Patterson’s religion and Walgreens’ scheduling came to a head in 2011, however, when Walgreens asked Patterson to cover an emergency Saturday training session. When he missed the training class, Walgreens fired him.

In Patterson v. Walgreens, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Patterson’s religious discrimination lawsuit.

Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. An accommodation poses an undue hardship if it causes more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business.

In Patterson, the 11th Circuit held in Walgreens’ favor because it had tried to reasonably accommodate Patterson’s religion.

Walgreens shifted the regular training schedule to Sunday through Thursday for Patterson. That minimized conflicts. For unusual training sessions that were conducted on his Sabbath, Walgreens allowed Patterson to find other employees to cover his shifts, and he did so on several occasions. Patterson conceded that his supervisor had never refused one of his requests to swap a Sabbath shift with a willing employee.

Regarding the Saturday, August 20, 2011, emergency training session that Patterson was assigned to conduct, besides his supervisor, he called only one employee, who advised him that she could not cover for him because of her childcare obligations. Although Patterson thought that several other employees could have covered the training session for him, he did not attempt to contact any of them.

Walgreens met its obligations under Title VII by allowing Patterson to arrange a schedule swap with other employees when they were willing to do so.

What is the lesson for employers? A documented history of accommodating an employee (whether it’s religion or disability) will go a long way to defeating that employee’s discrimination claim if you are compelled to deny an accommodation request.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on October 25, 2016June 29, 2023

Just Because It Might Be Legal Doesn’t Make It Right

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
The plaintiff in Tennial v. UPS [pdf], a former UPS manager, claimed that his manager placed him on a performance improvement plan, and ultimately demoted him, because of his race.WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11
In support of this claim, he relied in part on: 1) his manager’s alleged use of the word “n*****” in referencing another, nonparty UPS employee, and (2) a district president’s use of the word “boys” in reference to Tennial’s black co-workers.
The 6th Circuit concluded that these two stray comments could not stand as direct evidence in support of Tennial’s race-discrimination claim:

Direct evidence consists of facts that, “if believed, require[] the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer’s actions.” In other words, when direct evidence is provided, no inferences are needed in order to conclude that racial discrimination is afoot. …

A finding of racial discrimination based on these comments, moreover, would require us to make inferences. First, we would have to infer that Cochran’s alleged use of the n-word with respect to an urelated employee meant that his decision to demote Tennial was due to a similar racial animus. We would also be required to infer that Harm’s reference to Tennial’s coworkers as “boys” meant that his animus trickled down and influenced the individual decisions of Cochran and Slabaugh to initiate Tennial’s MPIP and demotion process.

So, this employer won, and avoided liability for a manager’s alleged use of the N-word. Just because something is legally defensible, however, doesn’t make it right. Merely because an employer can win a case for a stray racial epithet does not mean that any employer should tolerate this language. If I’m this employer (or the lawyer advising this employer), this manager would have been terminated upon an investigation reasonably confirming the misconduct.

I reach this conclusion for two reasons.

First, it’s the morally correct position. If someone uses the N-word to describe African Americans, even once, that person is a bigot, and bigots have no place in my workplace.

Secondly, if I, as the company’s lawyer, need to defend to a judge or jury my client’s actions, I need to able to argue that one stray comment doesn’t violate Title VII and, more importantly, that my client doesn’t tolerate such bigotry. Not firing the N-bomb utterer is nothing short of condoning the racism, and, if you’re condoning racism, you’re no better than the alleged racist.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on September 22, 2016June 29, 2023

Discourse Matters When Politics Enter the Conversation

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

My 8-year-old son hates Donald Trump. I know hate is a strong word. I rarely use it (except when describing the most evil of all condiments, mustard. I hate mustard).WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11

But, Donovan hates Donald Trump. All you have to do is mention his name, and he will tell you how much he hates The Donald, and how he has no room in his life for anyone who thinks any differently.

Over the months of listening to our son tell us of his hatred for Trump we never thought to ask why. Until we did.

His answer? If Trump wins he will ban people from other countries from coming to America, and then Zarah will never be able to visit us again.

Zarah is our German daughter. We hosted her as a foreign exchange student three years ago, and she lived with us for 10 months. We visited with her and family in Germany last summer, and last month she returned with her sister for a three-week visit. We love Zarah as our own daughter, and Donovan certainly loves her as his big sister.

And he cannot stomach the thought of Trump winning, implementing his immigrant ban, and not seeing Zarah again. Hence, his hatred of Donald Trump.

Employers, words matter. They may not get you sued in many situations, and, when sued, it takes a lot for an employee to win, but make no mistake, they matter. What you say, or condone others saying, at work about race, sex, religion, immigrants and national origin, disability, age, politics, they all matter, because they all set the tone.

Yet, rarely do those words create liability. In the words of one court, “The pluralism of our society is mirrored in the workplace, creating endless occasions for offense. Civilized people refrain from words and conduct that offend the people around them, but not all workers are civilized all the time. Title VII is not a code of civility.”

No, our workplace laws are not civility codes, but that does not provide us an excuse to behave uncivilized.

So, yes, Donovan hates Donald Trump, and, in his mind, he has good reason to do so. Your employees might suffer similar offense from the words they hear others utter in your workplace.

Just because those words might not be actionable does not mean you should not take action. First, your inaction might lead to liability. But, more importantly, your inaction and inattention signals that you condone, or worse yet, agree with the message.

That is not the type of employer you should want to be, and it not the type of employer for which your employees will want to work.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on May 15, 2012June 29, 2023

The Women’s Movement in the ’70s, Today: ‘You’ve Come a Long Way,’ But …

women's movement

A new social movement took center stage in the 1970s. It followed the lead of the civil rights movement, as well as the mounting protests against the Vietnam War. In this volatile era, the women of the nation were determined that their voices be heard above the din of discontent.women's movement 1970s

“I am woman; hear me roar,” went the lyrics of a popular Helen Reddy song from 1972.

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” went another popular slogan frequently used by activist Gloria Steinem. The phrase suggests an independence and stature for women that still, four decades later, is not fully realized. Even with a string of laws and legal wins that have advanced women’s positions in the workplace, advocates say there is still a long way to go.

“We take five steps forward and 10 steps back, but we try to keep moving forward and not get too discouraged,” says Nancy Kaufman, CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, which supports social and economic justice for all women. “We really try to be advocates, and that’s what the women’s movement has been all about. I feel we really need to stand up for the gains that we’ve made over the last century or so and not let them slip.”

Outspoken leaders of the women’s liberation movement, like Steinem and Betty Friedan, aimed to raise women up from home and work situations that they considered subjugation. And both forward-thinking college students and working women organized marches and protests for equal rights in the workforce. One of the more noteworthy rallies was the Women’s Strike for Equality where an estimated 50,000 women marched in New York and another 100,000 women across the country in August 1970 to mark the 50th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave U.S. women the right to vote.

“You’ve come a long way, baby,” was another popular saying of that era, which originated on cigarette advertisements meant to acknowledge the giant strides of the women’s movement.

But judging from a January 1975 article in Personnel Journal, the forebear of Workforce Management, some of the concepts embraced by the women’s movement, including equality in the workplace and the C-suite, were not going over well in tradition-bound workplaces.

In “What Does It Take for a Woman to Make It in Management?” by Marion M. Wood, an assistant professor at the University of Southern California, a list of 10 attributes was offered as requisites for women’s success: 1) competence; 2) education; 3) realism; 4) aggressiveness; 5) self-confidence; 6) career-mindedness; 7) femininity; 8) strategy; 9) support of an influential male; and 10) uniqueness.

Additionally, Wood quoted an unnamed male Equal Employment Opportunity director as saying, “For a woman to succeed, there must be a man in her life who believed it’s the right thing to do.”

The women’s movement of the ’70s was in part a reaction against the type of happy homemaker that was often portrayed in television sitcoms of previous decades. Like it or not, girls growing up in the ’50s would have been exposed to role models such as the housewives in Leave It to Beaver, The Donna Reed Show and Father Knows Best, women whose career goals were getting the kids off to school and serving dinner on time. A working woman as role model didn’t come along until the late 1960s and early 1970s when shows such as Julia—where Diahann Carroll starred in the first nonstereotypical network TV role for an African-American woman as Julia Baker, a single mom who worked full time as a nurse—and The Mary Tyler Moore Show in which Moore portrayed Mary Richards, a career-oriented single woman who is a news producer for a TV station in Minneapolis.

Today, women comprise nearly half of the U.S. labor force. While 70 percent of families in 1960 had a stay-at-home parent, now 70 percent of families have either both parents working or a single parent who works. In two-thirds of all households, women are either the main breadwinner or the co-breadwinners, according to the Center for American Progress. In 40 percent of all households, women are the only wage earners. Yet on average, women in the workplace earn 20 percent less than men doing comparable jobs.

Please also read: Workforce Management Looks Back at Workplace History (1920s-1970s)

Over the past several decades, a variety of laws and rulings have paved the way for more Mary Richards to succeed at work. Among the first was the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

And, truth be told, the wage gap was even wider in the early ’60s. When President John F. Kennedy signed the bill banning wage discrimination, women were making only 58 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

Other landmark legislation followed that was intended to improve worklife for women, while making it easier to meet the dual demands of work and family. In 1978 the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed as an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.) In 1993 the Family and Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, was passed. It entitles eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons. In 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law, giving workers more leeway to sue for paycheck discrimination.

Conservative commentators take issue with this act, as well as the validity of the gender wage gap. In a recent article in the online libertarian magazine Doublethink, the Ledbetter Act is said to force businesses “to constantly look over their shoulders” for claims rising up from the past. “This is a trial lawyer/class action lawsuit boondoggle,” writes columnist Nicole Kurokawa Neily, “and that’s bad for the American economy.”

But other observers defend the Ledbetter act as vital to fairer pay for women. And advocates say there is more to do to make the workplace a level playing field for both sexes.

“I think the current laws are important and a great start,” says Emily Martin, vice president and general counsel for the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C., “but I don’t think they’re the end of the conversation by any means. They’re a good baseline structure that establishes the crucial principle that women are entitled to equal treatment on the job.”

For example, Martin recently testified at an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hearing on pregnancy discrimination, which was ostensibly outlawed in 1978. Yet the EEOC reports that complaints from pregnant workers are on the rise, with 5,797 complaints in fiscal year 2011 alone. Most complaints stem from wrongful firing, while about 10 percent are from unlawful failure to hire.

At the Feb. 15 hearing, EEOC general counsel P. David Lopez stated, “At the core, all of these cases involve employers who held stereotypical assumptions about pregnant women.”

Adriana Kugler, chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department, tells Workforce Management that lingering stereotypes and biases play a large role in keeping women from achieving equality in the workplace. “There are expectations from employers that women want to have a family and won’t be as committed, and so they’re not even offered an opportunity,” she says.

Women tend to outperform men academically, while they are held behind in the workplace. According to the 2010 census, 36 percent of women age 25 to 29 had college degrees compared with 28 percent of men in that age group. A December 2011 report by the Harvard Independent states that since 1980 not only are more women than men enrolled in higher education, but also more women graduate with honors.

Yet, in Fortune 500 companies women account for just 7.5 percent of top earners, and only 3.6 percent of those companies’ CEOs are women.

Kugler says that, among employers, there’s a widespread but unexpressed belief that women cannot fully commit to job responsibilities, work-related travel and time away from home. She points to a 1997 study by two women economists from Harvard and Princeton universities of major orchestra auditions that showed that when the auditions were blind, women were as likely as men to be hired as musicians who would be expected to go on the road and to make considerable time commitments to the job. But when interviewed in person, men were hired more often than women.

“You know,” Kugler says, “the sound of a beautiful instrument should be the same whether it’s played by a man or a woman. But the employer has stereotypes about what kind of a commitment a woman is willing to make.”

To make it easier for a woman to commit to her job, especially when trying to juggle work and family, existing laws need to be updated, some observers say. Dina Bakst, co-president of A Better Balance, a legal team in New York City specializing in work-family issues, says, “Our laws and policies are really out of date. The FMLA was a monumental piece of legislation, but it doesn’t go far enough. We need paid leave and workplace flexibility.”

Bakst says 178 countries have paid family leave for new mothers, and 50 countries give paid leave to new fathers. Meanwhile, some states have passed their own legislation. Laws requiring paid family leave are on the books in California, New Jersey and Washington. A similar law has been introduced in New York’s Legislature.

“Paid family leave is a seriously important policy that many companies recognize as being good for the bottom line and have for their own employees,” Bakst says. “You’ll see many fantastic companies that do provide some form of paid leave because they know it’s good for business.”

As for the disparity between wages earned by men and women, there was slow but steady improvement in closing that gap after the 1963 Equal Pay Act became law. But once the female equivalent of a man-earned dollar passed 70 cents in 1990, progress began to sputter. “The pay gap really narrowed for about 30 years, and it has stalled for the past decade or so,” Kugler says.

The issue has not lacked attention. Indeed, it has its own unofficial holiday, April 17, which is meant to show how long a woman must keep working into the next year to earn the equivalent salary earned by a man in the previous year. And this year on Equal Pay Day, the U.S. Labor Department announced seven winners of its Equal Pay App Challenge. Teams of software developers devised their own free mobile phone applications to apprise job hunters of pay disparities and to offer tools, such as negotiation skills, for improving one’s chances for landing a better-paid job. (Links to the Equal Pay Apps can be found at tinyurl.com/78ycsgu.)

Incidentally, encouraging female workers to learn salary negotiation skills is not a new idea. In Wood’s Personnel Journal article from 37 years ago, lack of such skills was cited as a reason women were often held back from management positions. “Traditionally, women have not been trained to bargain,” she wrote. “Most have not learned that a salary offered is not a constant, but a starting point for discussion. Men … will continue considering women ‘cheap help’ as long as women continue to accept lower offers than they are worth.”

Disparities in men’s and women’s paychecks still exist in most professions. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey of 2009, the gap was greatest in the financial services industry, with women making about 70 cents to a man’s dollar. Even in teaching, which has traditionally been a woman’s profession and today is 80 percent female, women’s wages are lower. “In 2010, women in teaching professions were earning only 80.9 percent of their male counterparts’ wages,” says Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.5 million people.

Making its way through Congress now is the Paycheck Fairness Act. It would require disclosure of compensation while outlawing retaliation against employees who seek information about other workers’ salaries. According to Martin of the National Women’s Law Center, it would “tighten some of the loopholes” in the Equal Pay Act, namely loose interpretations that have allowed some employers to justify wage discrimination.

The case of Sheila Davidson of Philadelphia illustrates what the Paycheck Fairness Act is all about. Last November Davidson won her wage discrimination claim against her employer, Amtrak. Davidson had just been promoted when she learned that a man, doing the same job she had previously performed, was being paid a higher salary, higher even than what Davidson was earning after her promotion.

What gave Davidson an advantage is that she works in human resources for Amtrak and thus has access to compensation information. If the Paycheck Fairness Act gets passed, average employees would have access to similar data.

Philip Kovnat, the EEOC lawyer who represented Davidson in her lawsuit against Amtrak, remarked that it was not uncommon for HR people to file their own EEOC complaints. In fact, Davidson had been filing EEOC complaints on behalf of other employees for the previous eight years and had worked as an HR professional for 25 years. In the end, a federal court in Philadelphia directed Amtrak to pay her $171,483 in back pay, along with damages and attorney fees, and raised her pay by $16,505.

Susan G. Hauser is a writer based in Portland, Oregon. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on April 25, 2012June 29, 2023

EEOC Pronounces Protections for Transgendered Workers

Title VII does not, on its face, protect transgendered workers from discrimination.

Increasingly, however, courts have extended its protections under the umbrella of Title VII’s protections against sex-stereotyping-as-gender-discrimination, as first explained 23 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins decision:

“In saying that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, we mean that, if we asked the employer at the moment of the decision what its reasons were and if we received a truthful response, one of those reasons would be that the applicant or employee was a woman. In the specific context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender.”

Earlier this week, the EEOC made what might be the most significant pronouncement to date on the issue of the protection of the transgendered as gender discrimination. Macy v. Holder [pdf] involved a transgender woman, Mia Macy, who claimed that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms denied her a job after she announced she was transitioning from male to female.

In reinstating Macy’s Title VII claim, the EEOC concluded:

“That Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination proscribes gender discrimination, and not just discrimination on the basis of biological sex, is important…. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex whether motivated by hostility by a desire to protect people or a certain gender, by assumptions that disadvantage men, by gender stereotypes, or by the desire to accommodate other people’s prejudices or discomfort. …

Thus, we conclude that intentional discrimination against a transgender individual because that person is transgender is, by definition, discrimination “based on … sex,” and such discrimination therefore violates Title VII.”

While this opinion is not binding on courts, one cannot overstate the significance of the fact that the agency responsible for enforcing the federal EEO laws has made this broad pronouncement. Many employers operate under the belief that they are free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity because Title VII lacks no facial prohibition. As this case illustrates, that belief, no matter how commonly held, might be mistaken.

The EEOC and I disagree on a lot. (See criminal background checks as hiring criteria). Yet, on this issue, we are on the same page. It strikes me as appalling that in 2012 there are still minority groups against whom it remains facially legal to discriminate.

Already, 21 states prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment, 16 of which also prohibit gender identity discrimination; another 140 cities and counties have similar laws. Many companies have also made the private decision to prohibit this type of discrimination in their individual workplaces.

For the uncovered, this EEOC decision signals that the time is coming when this type of discrimination will no longer be an open issue. I suggest you get on the bandwagon now, and send a signal to all of your employees that you are a business of inclusion, not one of bigotry and exclusion.

Posted on January 31, 2001June 29, 2023

Religious Accommodation for Muslim Employees

Most HR management would agree that a happy workforce environment is a productive environment. And though many companies have gone to some lengths to ensure that their employees are happy, one area often missed in dealing with multiculturalism and diversity is religious accommodation in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 entitles all employees to reasonable religious accommodation by their employers.

In 1998, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 440 complaints from Muslim employees, an increase of 42 percent since 1994. Most of the cases of discrimination have been against female employees who wear the religious head scarf or males who wear beards for religious reasons.

The majority of these cases have been resolved upon explanation of religious beliefs or through threatened lawsuits. Legal action was taken in the case of seven women employed by Argenbright Security Inc. as security personnel at Dulles International Airport, who were sent home after refusing to remove their head scarves.

Each worker received a letter of apology, back pay for time missed, an additional payment, and payment of legal fees. Argenbright also provided sensitivity training on religious accommodation and sent out a notice to all employees about the significance of Islamic dress.

In October 1999, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing Muslim police officers to wear beards for religious or medical reasons. The case involved the suspension of two New Jersey Muslim police officers for failing to shave their beards. A Muslim employee of Sprint Corporation (NYSE: FON) in Kansas City, Missouri, received a monetary settlement after he was denied the right to attend mandatory Friday Islamic prayers.

The employee was allegedly fired for going over his supervisor to make a request for religious accommodation. Upon hearing of the supervisor’s actions, Sprint corporate officials contacted the Muslim employee and offered a settlement.

Several companies have already taken steps to accommodate their Muslim employees. Watermark Donut Co., a franchisee for Dunkin’ Donuts, has provided religious accommodation for its Muslim employees, who make up 40 percent of its workforce. Employees are allowed flexible schedules for Ramadan (month of fasting), religious holidays, the opportunity to perform their five daily prayers, and time to attend Friday prayers. Many other companies have followed suit and altered their policies to accommodate their Muslim employees, starting with sensitivity training.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group, published a booklet called “An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices,” to help employers devise and implement policies that can create a culturally sensitive working environment. It provides information on U.S. legal protections of religious rights, common Islamic religious practices, and ways in which employers can accommodate their Muslim employees.

Employers should become familiar with Islamic practices and the Islamic dress code to ensure religious accommodation in the workplace. Islam prescribes that women and men dress modestly. Muslim men are to be covered from the navel to the knee. Some men might also wear a beard and/or a small skullcap. Muslim women wear loose, non-revealing clothing, which includes covering of the hair and neck with a head scarf. Styles vary, but women wear clothing that covers the entire body except for the face and hands. Company dress code policies may have to be modified so that religiously mandated attire is addressed as a diversity issue.

Some tips from the CAIR guide for accommodating Muslim employees:

    • Provide time for employees to perform five daily prayers and washing before prayer. It takes about 15 minutes to perform the washing and prayer. Muslim employees can pray in their offices and worksite or any other space that is quiet, clean, and dry. Other workers should not walk in front of or interrupt worshippers during prayer.
    • Allot time to attend Friday congregational prayers at the local mosque during a slightly extended lunch break. The prayer takes place at noontime, lasts a total of 45 to 90 minutes, and includes a sermon at the end. Work missed can be made up later in the day or in the early morning.
    • During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast (refraining from eating, drinking, and smoking) from sunup to sundown. Work shifts can be shortened if the lunch break is not taken. Muslims break fast after sundown.
  • Muslims take off one day twice a year to celebrate the Eid (festival), which follows the lunar calendar. The first Eid is celebrated at the end of Ramadan, and the second is celebrated beginning on the 10th day of the 12th Islamic month. No undue penalty should be given since this is a religious obligation.

Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. For information or to obtain a copy of “An Employer’s Guide to Islamic Religious Practices,” call 202-659-CAIR.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 Page 2

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress