Women's Take - The NWLC Blog

Getting the Government's House in Order

pfurey — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:30:32 +0000

Posted by:

Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment

Although the overall wage gap stands at 23 cents when salaries of fulltime male and female workers are compared, it varies by key factors such as industry and occupation. In fact, the wage gap is relatively tiny in some occupations and in others it is startling large. But no matter the industry and no matter the occupation, the gender wage gap persists.

Here's an interesting fact — in the federal government, the wage gap is much smaller than in the private sector. A GAO report [PDF] has estimated that the gap in wage is about 11 percent. I expect in the coming months that there will be a lot more attention on the wage gap among federal workers. Why? Because the President has a new memorandum ordering the Office of Personnel Management to submit "a Government-wide strategy to address any gender pay gap in the Federal workforce." The order states that the government-wide strategy should include analysis of the ways in which alterations to the federal government's pay scales could reduce the wage gap and directs agencies to consider ways to promote greater transparency.

A serious strategy to close the wage gap for federal workers is critical. First, an 11 percent gap translates into lost wages for women. I'm pretty sure most women can't afford to give that much of their pay check away. But a second and equally important point is the precedent this sets. As the nation's largest employer, the federal government has the ability to set the standard for other employers. As the memorandum put it, the federal government "has a special responsibility to act as a model employer." There is simply no place for gender-based wage disparities in any workplace, but especially in the federal government.

One last thing about the new equal pay memo — the work will be concluded quickly. The order requires that agencies submit information to the Director of OPM within 90 days and that the Director submit a plan to the President within 180 days. That's right — days. So we'll soon have an employer led strategy not only for the federal government but one that employers can follow around the country. About time.

Vermont: Famous for Maple Syrup, Ben & Jerry's, and Fair Pay

pfurey — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:15:58 +0000

Posted by:

Catherine Yourougou, Fellow

Way to go Vermont!

Yesterday, Vermont passed a law that deals with a huge barrier to fighting workplace discrimination, punitive pay secrecy policies. Over 61 percent of private-sector workers prohibit or discourage discussions on wages amongst coworkers. Yet, comparing wages is one of the easiest ways to know if you are getting less than your due. When employees don't know how they compare to others, they may not even realize they are being paid less.

Vermont's law provides crucial elements to remove that barrier. It prevents employers from conditioning employment on an employees' promise not to disclose, inquire, or discuss their wages. It also prevents employers from requiring employees sign waivers or documents. Importantly, it has an anti-retaliation provision, protecting employees who do disclose, inquire, and discuss their wages.

Vermont is not the only state to ban secret pay policies; California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, and Michigan have anti-retaliation laws addressing pay disclosure policies. It is time for Congress to follow Vermont's lead — the Paycheck Fairness Act would also prohibit employers from penalizing workers who share their own wages. And it's time for these absurd policies to be banned in states around the country.

A Step Forward For Pregnant Workers: Maryland Passes Bill Requiring Reasonable Accommodations

djackson — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:51:59 +0000

Posted by:

Cortelyou Kenney, Fellow

Peggy Young, a pregnant UPS driver in Maryland, brought a doctor’s note to her employer stating that she could not lift more than 20 lbs. Her employer refused to honor the restriction—saying that light duty was only available to other classes of workers such as those injured on the job, those with disabilities recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and those who had lost their commercial driver’s licenses. Peggy Young sued for pregnancy discrimination and lost; the courts held that she wasn’t comparable to those workers who UPS accommodated.

If Ms. Young were seeking her accommodation today, the story might be much different. That’s because earlier today the Maryland governor just signed into law the Reasonable Accommodations for Pregnant Workers Act. Maryland’s law addresses a misreading of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires employers to treat pregnant workers the same as those “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Unfortunately, many courts around the country have held, like in Ms. Young’s case, that, under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, pregnant workers are not similar to workers in these other categories. As a result, many pregnant women in Maryland and around the country have been denied minor and inexpensive accommodations, forced onto unpaid leave, been fired, or had to continue to do tasks that posed risk to their pregnancies, even while workers with comparable limitations have been accommodated.

Similar to the Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act, a bill proposed on the federal level the Center has written about many times before, Maryland’s new law takes the comparator issue off the table and simply requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant-related disabilities as long as such accommodations do not present an undue hardship to the employer. Maryland’s law promises to greatly help pregnant women and their families: according to the National Partnership on Women & Families, in 2010 more than 54,000 pregnant women in Maryland provided critical income to their families. Of course, only a fraction of these women require accommodations, but, for those who do, whether or not they receive them could mean the difference between having a job or not and having a safe pregnancy or not.

Today’s victory is a step toward women’s equality and we applaud Maryland for making the world a more secure place for pregnant women. And we thank all of you Marylanders who lobbied the Maryland legislature to help make it happen.

Vermont’s New Equal Pay Law – A Challenge to Policymakers

djackson — Thu, 16 May 2013 16:53:56 +0000

Posted by:

Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment

Next month is the 50th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. And this week Vermont is showing policymakers around the country the best way to mark that day: fixing the equal pay laws. Vermont’s governor has signed a new, comprehensive equal pay law that targets a range of factors that contribute to the wage gap.

The new law takes care of some of the loop holes in Vermont’s equal pay statute, requiring that employers must have business reasons for paying workers unequal wages.

It also improves the process for ensuring that state government contractors are paying fair wages. And it goes after the pay penalty paid by mothers as well – it provides protections for new mothers who must express breast milk for their babies at work and includes protections for employees who request flexible work arrangements. It also sets the stage for a future paid family leave law in Vermont.

Finally, it importantly bans retaliation against employees who talk about their wages.

As this new law shows, there are real solutions to address the wage gap.

And some of these sound policies may sound a bit familiar. That’s because many of the provisions in Vermont’s new law are reflected in the Paycheck Fairness Act, which was reintroduced this year in both the House and the Senate.

With women making almost 87 percent of men’s wages in Vermont, it has one of the smallest wage gaps in the country. That is true for African American and Hispanic women too, who are paid 79 cents and 72 cents when compared to white, non-Hispanic men. But Vermont policymakers clearly must know that shortchanging women by any amount is bad for everyone– it means less money for Vermont women and their families for key items like groceries, student loan payments, and child care.

Earlier this year New Mexico updated its equal pay laws in critical ways. And Vermont has now thrown down the gauntlet with its new equal pay law. It’s a challenge that I hope policymakers at the federal level and in states around the country will take.

Hospital Mergers Threaten Reproductive Health Care in Washington State

djackson — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:08:12 +0000

Posted by:

Kelli Garcia, Senior Counsel

Hospital mergers don’t typically come to mind when thinking about threats to reproductive health. But, because Catholic hospitals do not provide certain reproductive health services, including contraception, abortion, tubal ligation and vasectomies, a wave of mergers between secular (and even public) hospitals and Catholic affiliated hospitals in Washington state is doing just that.

If all of the proposed mergers in the state were to be completed, almost half of Washington’s hospital beds would be controlled by Catholic health systems. In fact, all of the beds in 10 of Washington’s 39 counties could be subject to religious restrictions, forcing residents to travel significant distances to find a secular hospital. If the proposed merger between Harrison Medical Center and Franciscan Health Systems is completed, for example, residents in Bremerton would have to take an hour long ferry ride to get to the next closest acute care hospital.

This leaves people unable to access necessary reproductive care. A woman who has a Cesarean section and wants a tubal ligation would be have to either deliver her child at a hospital far from home or be forced to have two separate surgeries. And, this is all happening in a state that has strong protections for reproductive health care [PDF]. There is still time. Local and national advocates, including NWLC, are challenging these mergers and working to ensure that women have continued access to reproductive health care.

“We Don’t Pay You to Pee” and Other Reasons Why We Need the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

djackson — Tue, 14 May 2013 18:19:04 +0000

Posted by:

Cortelyou Kenney, Fellow

Posted by:

Liz Watson, Senior Advisor

Amanda Roller was a call center employee in Kansas. After Amanda became pregnant she started experiencing morning sickness. Amanda’s supervisor repeatedly refused her requests to go the bathroom and instead told her that she would get Amanda a larger trash can so that she could vomit at her desk. Amanda asked again, and her supervisor again denied her request, saying, “We don’t pay you to pee.” Amanda was then demoted and eventually fired.

Unfortunately, Amanda is not alone. Across the country, pregnant women face discrimination in the workplace when their employers refuse to make adjustments to their job duties such as honoring lifting restrictions, allowing them to stay off high ladders, or even just letting them go to the bathroom to vomit.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) outlawed this type of discrimination in 1978 with its requirement that employers treat pregnant workers the same as those who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” But too many lower courts have misinterpreted the PDA, holding incorrectly that it permits employers to provide accommodations to workers with disabilities or on-the-job injuries but deny those accommodations to pregnant workers.

Of course, many pregnant workers will be able to continue working throughout their pregnancies without any changes to their jobs. But some other pregnant workers—particularly those in physically demanding and low-wage jobs— need these accommodations to have healthy pregnancies and to continue to provide for their families.

That is where the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act comes in. This commonsense legislation was reintroduced in Congress today by lead co-sponsors, Senators Casey and Shaheen and Representative Nadler. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. California has had legislation requiring employers to accommodate pregnant workers for more than a decade, and during that time the number of pregnancy discrimination lawsuits has decreased in that state even while the number of such suits rose nationwide. It’s time for Congress to set the record straight: a temporary physical impairment that can easily be accommodated should not cost a pregnant worker her job. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would do just that.

A Very Special Delivery

djackson — Tue, 14 May 2013 15:33:26 +0000

Posted by:

Amy Qualliotine, Outreach Associate

The White House is a busy place – there is always a steady stream of people flowing in and out, meeting with officials to make a case for their cause. Yesterday, Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, had a meeting about the PreK for All plan with some very important advocates ages 5 months to 5-years-old.


Click images to view in full size

Member organizations of the Strong Start for Children campaign collected over 30,000 notes and pieces of artwork thanking President Obama for his deep commitment to early learning, which the children delivered to Ms. Muñoz.



Click images to view in full size

The White House gets a LOT of mail – but I can assure you that most of it doesn’t arrive in little red wagons or include artwork made by children across the country. We’re very excited to move forward with our efforts to make the President’s important early learning initiative a reality for these children! If your organization has not already joined us as part of the Strong Start for Children campaign, please sign up here.

All photos courtesy of Jeff Martin/photosbyjeffrey.com.

What Mother’s Day Has To Do With Good Health

djackson — Mon, 13 May 2013 20:59:52 +0000

Posted by:

Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel

I love my baby. He is so sweet and his laughter makes any bad mood float away. But not only is my baby oh so sweet, he also made me aware of a breast lump. I noticed it once I started nursing him, because, really, I never really paid much attention to the issue of breast lumps and never did any self exams.

I know, I know, health groups like American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecologists advocate women to have “breast self awareness,” and to report any changes to your breasts to your health care providers. But, since I don’t have any risk factors, I just never thought I would be in trouble. Well, after finding that not-so-small lump, I felt guilty. I realized even though I’m a huge advocate of preventive health, I wasn’t doing the one simple step of taking care of myself by getting preventive health screenings. And I realize, this is what preventive health is about, it’s about taking those steps to get ahead of health concerns before the health concerns get ahead of you.

Luckily, it seems that the lump is benign, but it is good I caught it and that I am following up with periodic check-ups. So to me, this Mother’s Day, I was reminded about good health. About preventive health, really. It’s about all of those good things the health care law requires new health plans to cover because they are preventive health.

I’m talking birth control. Folic acid for pregnant women. Well-woman visits. Breast pumps. Screenings for STIs, HIV, gestational diabetes, and interpersonal and domestic violence.

I’m talking those vaccines that my baby gets every couple of months. And those well-baby visits. This is what preventive health looks like. And it will look like for America.

So get your preventive health checks. I know I am.

Two Minimum Wage Bills Pass in Minnesota

djackson — Mon, 13 May 2013 15:26:40 +0000

Posted by:

Julie Vogtman, Senior Counsel

I’ve got to hand it to Minnesota’s legislature. In addition to last week’s House vote to legalize same-sex marriage (with the Senate expected to follow suit today), the House and Senate have now each passed a bill to raise the state minimum wage!

This is especially good news for women, who make up 70 percent of Minnesota’s minimum wage workers. Raising the minimum wage would improve economic security for thousands of women while boosting the state’s economy – and it could help narrow the gender wage gap because women are the majority of workers who would benefit. In Minnesota in 2011, the typical woman working full time, year round was paid just under 80 cents for every dollar paid to her male counterpart.

But here’s the catch: the bills passed by the two chambers are quite different from one another. The House bill would raise the state minimum wage to $9.50 per hour by 2015, then index it annually to keep up with inflation. (Minnesota’s current minimum wage is actually only $6.15 per hour, but because federal minimum wage law prevails, most workers are entitled to a minimum of $7.25 per hour.) The Senate bill would raise the minimum wage to just $7.75 per hour by 2015, with no inflation adjustment.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has expressed support for a minimum wage of $9.00 or higher, noting that he “want[s] work to pay – pay off for the family and pay for our society. That means someone working full-time needs to make enough money to bring them up to the poverty level.” I couldn’t agree more – and by boosting annual wages for a full-time minimum wage worker from $14,500 to $19,000 by 2015, the House bill would allow a mom with two children to lift her family out of poverty. In contrast, under the Senate bill, a full-time minimum wage worker would earn only $15,500 annually by 2015 – still about $3,000 below the federal poverty line for a family of three.

Members of Minnesota’s House and Senate have only a week left to negotiate a compromise between the two bills before the legislative session ends. Reaching agreement may not be an easy feat; indeed, just last month, Hawaii’s House and Senate were unable to reconcile two minimum wage bills, and the session ended with no minimum wage increase at all. But thousands of women and men in Minnesota are counting on their legislators to give them the raise they deserve – one that looks a lot more like the House’s proposal than the Senate’s.

Two Judges Confirmed Last Week

djackson — Mon, 13 May 2013 14:48:36 +0000

Posted by:

Amy K. Matsui, Senior Counsel and Director of Women and the Courts

Last week, the Senate confirmed two district court judges by overwhelming margins – Shelly Dick was confirmed to the Middle District of Louisiana by voice vote, and Nelson Roman was confirmed to the Southern District of New York by a vote of 97-0. Judge Dick was originally nominated last April, but was blocked by Senator David Vitter until after the 2012 presidential election. After being approved by the Judiciary Committee on February 28, Judge Dick only (!) had to wait two and a half months for a floor vote. Judge Roman, who was originally nominated last September, was voted out of committee the same day. Notably, Judge Dick is the first woman to sit on the bench in the Middle District of Louisiana.

Compared to nominees like Cailtin Halligan, who did not receive a floor vote more than two years after she was first nominated, or Rosemary Marquez, who was nominated to a judicial emergency seat on the District of Arizona in June 23 but has not even yet received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Dick and Judge Roman are lucky. The fact that these highly qualified, consensus nominees had to wait as long as they did stands in stark contrast to the speed of the process during the last Administration [PDF]. If the time between the Committee vote and the floor vote for the rest of the pending nominees were as short, we might have a fair shot at making a serious dent in the sky-high judicial vacancy rate. Only time will tell whether the determined minority in the Senate will repent of its obstructionist ways and do so.

Will Eden Foods Chairman Change His Tune Today to Save His Lawsuit against Birth Control Coverage?

djackson — Fri, 10 May 2013 17:41:53 +0000

Posted by:

Shari Inniss-Grant, Fellow

Today in court, will Eden Foods’ President, Michael Potter, change his tune? Potter is one of the many for-profit business owners suing the government because he does not want to cover birth control in his employees’ health plans, as required by the health care law. Some speculate that Potter’s recent statements have cast doubt on his motivation and undermined his case. During today’s oral arguments his lawyers will attempt to reconcile his legal claims with his many statements to the contrary.

Potter has spent weeks talking up in the media his opposition to the contraceptive coverage benefit. He’s stated that he opposes the contraceptive coverage benefit because he questions “what gives [the federal government] the right to tell [him] that [he has] to [cover birth control].” But here’s the thing: he’s admitted he would not have cared if it was “Jack Daniels or birth control”—it’s the principle. Potter’s admitted that the root issue—“the beginning and ending of the story”—is the government trying to tell him what to do. As he said, “[he’s] got more interest in good quality long underwear than [he has] in birth control pills.”

Today, during oral arguments for the preliminary injunction, his tune may change. Contrary to his many statements, his lawyers will try to convince a Michigan district court that Mr. Potter’s religious beliefs motivate his attempt to deny his employees (and their families) the comprehensive insurance they are entitled to. That’s because the claims Potter is making require a violation of religious exercise. But proving religious beliefs are at issue won’t be an easy task. When asked what particular religious belief led him to oppose the benefit, Potter said “Well, there isn’t any one particular religious belief… I find it hard to get my head around the question.”

Even if Potter actually opposes contraceptive coverage on religious grounds, his claims should be rejected – the laws his attorneys rely on do not allow employers to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. And, as the district court already recognized in denying Potter a temporary restraining order, “the purpose of the [benefit] is not to target religion, but instead to promote public health and gender equality.” In fact, in shaping the benefit the government has “made efforts to accommodate religious beliefs.”

As Potter said, he “isn’t an expert in anything…[He’s] in the food business. [He’s] qualified to have opinions about that and not issues that are purely women’s issues.” Potter should follow the advice given by droves of his former consumers —he should stick to making decisions about food products rather than his employees’ personal decisions about their reproductive health. As a seemingly ardent believer in autonomy, he could put his principles in action by recognizing the fundamental right of his employees to make health care decisions without his intrusion. Even if he refuses to do so, the court should recognize the right of his employees to make their own health care and religious decisions. That right belongs to individuals, not the companies employing them.

Disorderly Conduct: Working Families Need More Than a Day Off

djackson — Tue, 07 May 2013 18:14:04 +0000

Posted by:

Valarie Hogan, Fellow

Just in time for Mother’s Day here comes the “Working Families Flexibility Act.” This bill is the Mother’s Day equivalent of coal in your stocking for Christmas. It takes hard-earned overtime pay out of working women and men’s pockets in exchange for the illusory promise of comp time.

While the bill’s supporters claim that there is nothing coercive about offering a comp time alternative to overtime pay, they do so against a backdrop of rampant violations of low-wage workers’ rights to overtime. In a study of low-wage workers in major cities, 76% said they worked overtime without being paid time and one-half. It is a safe bet that enacting a comp time law would give rise to a whole new category of wage and hour abuses. This wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing bill requires time-starved employees to work extra hours just to get time off to take care of their families, and gives employers decision-making power over when and whether they can take that time off.

In contrast, Congresswoman DeLauro offers an approach that would actually make pay fairer for women and their families. Today she raised the Paycheck Fairness Act as a “previous question” to the comp time bill (previously explained here) – for all those House procedure folks, this basically means that the House could take up the commonsense Paycheck Fairness Act before moving onto to the ridiculous comp time bill.

Rather than taking money out of the pockets of hard-working families, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help working families ensure that they receive the money that they deserve. It would prohibit retaliation against workers who discuss their salaries, improve remedies for employees who have been discriminated against, and increase transparency into salary decisions. Here are some basic facts that make it critical to move forward on this bill:

The wage gap is real: women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. It’s even worse for African American and Hispanic women, who make 60 and 55 cents, respectively, for every dollar earned by a man; and
The wage gap has been stagnant for a decade: The Equal Pay Act made great strides in eliminating pay discrimination, but clearly more needs to be done. The Paycheck Fairness Act would strengthen the Equal Pay Act in ways that will help bring about the end of pay discrimination.

Too many women have waited for too long to be treated fairly in the workplace. Let’s pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and give women what they’ve earned. Don’t miss this opportunity to tell your Representative why the Paycheck Fairness Act is important to you by calling today! You can find everything you need to express your support on NWLC’s Facebook page or website.

Teen Mom Proves we Need the PPSAE Now More than Ever

djackson — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:50:06 +0000

Posted by:

Becka Wall, Program Assistant

My senior year of college, two of my roommates and I watched Teen Mom CONSTANTLY. I liked to pretend I wasn’t watching it, but the conversation usually went something like this:

Becka (standing in doorway): “Oh jeez, guys. You’re watching this?”

Arielle: “Yes. Absolutely.”

[10 minutes later]

Rachel: “…Do you want to sit down?”

Becka (still standing in doorway): “…..Yes. FARRAH’S CRYING FACE IS CRAZY.”

When you watch the show, the difficulties of teen parents and pregnant students become painfully clear. Recently, I was re-watching Season 1 on Netflix Instant, and it clicked – wow. The Pregnant and Parenting Student Access to Education Act would REALLY help these girls.

Title IX already affords a number of protections to pregnant & parenting students. This law requires that schools receiving federal funds not discriminate against students on the basis of sex, which includes pregnancy and related conditions like childbirth, pregnancy termination, and recovery. This prohibition against discrimination comes in a number of forms – for example, students must not be forced to attend a different program or school than their peers, must be given the opportunity to make up missed work for pregnancy-related absences, must be treated the same as if they had a temporary disability, and may not be excluded from sports or extracurricular activities.

The Pregnant and Parenting Student Access to Education Act (PPSAE) is designed to go beyond nondiscrimination by giving students the tools they need to succeed. It would enable school districts to – among other things – create graduation plans for pregnant and parenting students; provide academic support, parenting and life skills classes, strategies to prevent future unplanned pregnancies, and legal aid services; help pregnant and parenting students gain access to affordable child care, and revise school policies and practices to remove discouraging barriers. Pretty great, huh?

In just the TV pilot, I could spot a number of ways that increased enforcement of Title IX and passing the PPSAE would help these girls tremendously.

Farrah gave up cheerleading and her friends because the school’s administration made a huge deal out of her pregnancy and her friends shunned her for it. Counterproductively, this will make it harder for Farrah to stay engaged in school. If Title IX had been enforced at her high school, Farrah would have been able to stick with cheerleading, despite officials' discomfort. Title IX also includes sexual harassment protections – and pregnancy harassment is sexual harassment. Officials at Farrah’s school could have supported an educational climate where Farrah felt welcome instead of being barraged with offensive treatment from her peers. The PPSAE Act also would give school districts funds to hire a liaison to oversee the education of pregnant and parenting students and help them access services.

Catelynn has put her child up for an open adoption and is looking for better birth control methods, but lies to her doctor about her sexual history. The PPSAE Act would have given schools the means to help students with pregnancy prevention strategies and mental health services, which could have given Catelynn the knowledge she needed to be more truthful to her doctor.

Amber dropped out of high school and feels alone and in need of help. Had Title IX been better enforced in Amber’s school, she would have felt supported by the school administration and had more options open to her. And had the PPSAE Act been in place, Amber’s school could have connected her with mental health counseling, and the school would have had additional resources to retain students and encourage Amber to continue her education.

If one little bill can do all this change in just a 45-minute episode of a television show, imagine what it would do if the bill actually became law.

Title VII’s Disparate Impact Doctrine: The Difference It’s Made for Women

djackson — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:37:31 +0000

Posted by:

Amy K. Matsui, Senior Counsel and Director of Women and the Courts

Posted by:

Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment

This post was cross-posted from ACSBlog.

This week the Senate HELP Committee will vote on the nomination of Thomas Perez to be the next Secretary of Labor. In the midst of the many unfair and unfounded attacks lobbed against Mr. Perez in recent weeks, an important legal doctrine for combating sex discrimination has also come under attack: disparate impact. Under Mr. Perez’s leadership as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, the Department has employed the longstanding disparate impact analysis to combat employment discrimination. Its application is not only legally sound, but exceptionally important to eliminate discrimination and further justice.

The Supreme Court and Congress have long made clear that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “prohibits employers from using employment practices that cause a disparate impact” based on sex and other protected classes. The doctrine of disparate impact allows for a remedy when an employment practice that may be neutral on its face has an unjustified adverse effect on members of a protected class.

Disparate impact has been crucial to addressing entrenched discriminatory employment practices. Indeed, women’s entry into high-wage, nontraditional occupations has been made possible in large part by challenges to unfortunate employment practices that disproportionately disadvantage women, which would have otherwise remained unchanged but for the Title VII’s disparate impact doctrine. Courts, for example, have struck down height, weight or strength requirements implemented by employers in police departments, fire departments, in construction and in correctional facilities because the requirements were not related to job performance, but instead reflected stereotypes about the skills required for a position. Moreover, there are often alternative practices that may both satisfy job performance demands and allow for a diverse workforce.

A few cases illustrate the importance of courts applying the disparate impact standard to strike seemingly neutral employment practices that over time have limited women’s access to jobs in higher paying fields like police work, firefighting, or construction.

The Ninth Circuit struck down the height requirements utilized by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) because they were not job related and had a disparate impact on women, who tend to be shorter than men. (Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1979)).
The Eighth Circuit struck down a newly implemented strength test used for workers in a sausage factory, finding that the test was more physically demanding than the actual job and had a gross disparate impact on women. (Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Dial Corp., 469 F.3d 735 (8th Cir. 2006)).
A court struck down a construction site policy prohibiting bathroom breaks for crane operators. The employer told its female crane operators to follow the example of their male colleagues and urinate off the back of the crane while working. This policy was not job-related and had a disparate impact on women. (Johnson v. AK Steel Corp, 2008 WL 2184230 (S.D. Ohio May 23, 2008)).

Although we’ve highlighted only a few here, in numerous cases courts have appropriately applied the disparate impact doctrine to strike employment practices that limit women’s access to jobs in higher paying, traditionally male fields. But the doctrine alone is not enough – both a robust legal standard, and vigorous enforcement of that standard, are necessary to ensure that Title VII remains an effective tool for opening doors previously closed to women and people of color. And under Mr. Perez’s leadership, for example, the Civil Rights Division has brought a number of cases challenging discriminatory physical tests for police officers and corrections officers that disproportionately excluded women, which resulted in back pay and hires with retroactive seniority to female job applicants who were harmed by those tests. We commend Mr. Perez’s enforcement of the disparate impact standard; it provides grounds to support, not undermine, both his nomination and the standard itself.

Seriously??? Teen Mom’s Photo Excluded from Yearbook

djackson — Fri, 03 May 2013 20:06:45 +0000

Posted by:

Lara S. Kaufmann, Senior Counsel & Director of Education Policy for At-Risk Students

Just when I thought I had seen it all, and right on the heels of our announcement two days ago of a great Title IX pregnancy discrimination settlement with the City University of New York, my colleague forwards me this article and video from HuffPo. Apparently last summer a North Carolina high school allowed its rising seniors to pose for senior photos with props that represented their achievements, who they are, what they like, etc. Some students posed with footballs, some even posed with their family pets, and teen mom Caitlin Tiller posed with her baby. Touchingly, Caitlin explains that her son “helped me get to where I am today.” She said that after giving birth she started to work harder in school – she even graduated early, began college classes in January and got a part-time job working 30 hours a week. She added: “I wouldn’t be the person I am today without him.”

Still, a month ago school officials told Caitlin that they would not print the photo of her with her baby. They said the baby should not be pictured because he is not “school related.” Boy, would I love to hear them explain how a family pet is “school related.” The school also said – and here is where the truth comes out – that they thought it would encourage teen pregnancy. There it is again, folks, the all-powerful “teen pregnancy is contagious” myth. It’s just not true. And sadly, that myth kept the school from doing what I think would have been the right thing: supporting and encouraging a hard-working and accomplished young mother.

Yet another reminder that even though we have come a long way since Title IX was passed in 1972, we still have a long way to go

Will Congress Pay as Much Attention to Children as Airplanes?

djackson — Fri, 03 May 2013 19:52:55 +0000

Posted by:

Karen Schulman, Senior Policy Analyst

Congress recently acted with uncharacteristic speed to undo the cuts to air traffic controllers implemented as part of the “sequester” (the across-the-board federal budget cuts), before flying home to their districts for a weeklong break. While making sure that the cuts did not cause them delays at the airport, they ignored the cuts that are affecting vulnerable women and children across the country. These include cuts to a range of crucial supports for families such as child care assistance and Head Start.

The National’s Women’s Law Center’s new fact sheet describes the importance of child care assistance in helping parents afford the care they need to work and support their families, and ensure their children are in safe, reliable care that fosters their learning and growth. Congress should be investing more in child care assistance, not chipping away at the help there is through arbitrary budget cuts.

Head Start, which provides comprehensive early care and education for poor infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, is also essential in supporting families and enabling children to get a strong start. The National Head Start Association is tracking the terrible effects of the sequester on Head Start, which could lose 70,000 children as a result of the cuts. The Coalition on Human Needs has also been collecting information from communities and states around the country about how the sequester is affecting Head Start as well as other programs that play an important role in helping children and families.

Perhaps children and families who rely on these early care and education programs will need to be at the airports when members of Congress head there for return trips to Washington. Because the airport seems to be the only place where Congress pays attention to the harm done by the sequester.

Women’s Employment Update: Adult Women’s Unemployment Hits Four-Year Low Despite April’s Tepid Job Growth

djackson — Fri, 03 May 2013 19:18:47 +0000

Posted by:

Abby Lane, Fellow

Here’s a highlight for you in the release of last month’s jobs data: in April, adult women’s unemployment rate fell to its lowest point in more than four years. That’s right, the last time unemployment was this low was in the first months of 2009.

But hey there, hold your horses. Don’t get too excited yet!

While this number may be looking pretty good, the overall story just isn’t quite as nice. April brought in another month of slow job growth and slow monthly gains mean that it still could take years to recover fully from the recession. Over at the Economic Policy Institute, economist Heidi Shierholz writes, “In good times this would be fine, but at a time of persistent economic weakness, it represents an ongoing disaster.”

So what else stands out in today’s jobs report? Here’s what caught my eye as we crunched the numbers for today’s NWLC analysis:

6.7 percent: This represents the good. Unemployment rates continue to fall, and women’s unemployment rate hit a four-year low last month at 6.7 percent. In April, adult men’s unemployment rate ticked up slightly, while the overall unemployment rate fell ever so slightly, also to a four-year low. Overall, we’re doing better, but we’re gaining jobs at a crushingly slow pace, especially compared to earlier recoveries.
165,000 jobs: In April, the economy added 165,000 jobs. All of the job gains were in the private sector, while the public sector lost 11,000 jobs. And in fact, women gained more than 70 percent of the jobs added to the economy in April. However, this pace of adding jobs just isn’t enough. Ezra Klein called the recovery “durable" and the “kind of recovery that, if it can go for several more years, will eventually get us out of the muck.” But then he then me made the more critical point: “But it is also slow enough that the human toll of the crisis will be long and enormous.”
More than four in ten: That that’s the percent of jobless adults who were unable to find work after more than six months of searching in April. In April, 42.8 percent of adult women and 42.9 percent of adult men had been looking for work since at least November. As we’ve mentioned before, this figure continues to stay high. Making matters worse for these jobless workers? The sequester is cutting their unemployment benefits.

For workers who are unemployed, a recovery that will take several more years to get us out of the mess just isn’t enough. And to make matters worse, we’re just beginning to see the effects of the sequester. Government workers are starting to experience furloughs and vital programs are being cut. As the negative effects of the sequester escalate, the limited progress we’ve seen could easily unravel.

To President Obama, with Love

djackson — Fri, 03 May 2013 14:32:12 +0000

Posted by:

Amy Qualliotine, Outreach Associate

A few weeks ago, President Obama announced an ambitious agenda for early care and education. This plan would expand access to the high-quality early learning opportunities we know help put children on a path to success!

You know who is excited about this plan? KIDS (and their parents who understand just how important early learning experiences are to their future success)!

Next week, members of the Strong Start for Children – Building America’s Future campaign will be delivering notes to President Obama thanking him for prioritizing the needs of America’s youngest and most vulnerable children. Thank You notes have been pouring into our office and the offices of our campaign partners across the country, and we are getting very excited about getting them to the President.


Click images to view in full size

Kids really are creative -there is more than one Thank You note that requests a basketball game with the President, a few that politely ask for a visit from Mr. Obama, and one note that is a note to Sasha and Malia asking for a playdate.

These notes have inspired us to keep working hard to make this bold plan a reality! If you want to join us, there’s still time to submit an electronic Thank You note. And be sure to check back for photos of our Thank You note delivery.


Click images to view in full size

We Have a Decision: West Virginia Governor Will Accept Federal Money to Cover Hard-Working Women and Families

djackson — Thu, 02 May 2013 20:22:37 +0000

Posted by:

Anna Benyo, Senior Health Policy Analyst

West Virginians scored a huge win today! WV Governor Earl Ray Tomblin decided to accept federal funds available under the health care law to cover more hardworking women and families through the Medicaid program. After months of activism by fantastic on-the-ground organizations like WVFREE and state advocates, Governor Tomblin made the right call.

Why this decision is so important? Today’s announcement means that:

Over 67,000 women in West Virginia could be eligible for coverage.
When combined with other reforms in the health care law, this coverage expansion could reduce uninsurance in West Virginia by over 67%.
It will bring in $721 million federal dollars, and could save West Virginians over $281 million in uncompensated care costs.

What’s more, Governor Tomblin’s decision aligns with public beliefs. A recent public poll found wide-ranging support for covering more people through the Medicaid program. Two--thirds of respondents in this national survey want their state to accept the federal money and provide health insurance to state residents who are uninsured—helping them get preventive care and stay out of hospital emergency rooms.

The bottom-line: West Virginians deserve the financial security of having health coverage and the health care they need, when they need it. Today’s decision is a major step forward for all West Virginians.

Zero Tolerance Policies & Police Officers in Schools Don’t Mix: FL Teen Charged with Felony After a Failed Science Experiment

djackson — Thu, 02 May 2013 17:57:59 +0000

Posted by:

Valarie Hogan, Fellow

The Nutty Professor was a landmark role for both Jerry Lewis and Eddie Murphy. As I’m sure you all know, the main plot line is driven by the scientific prowess of the professor, who develops a serum that transforms him from a science-loving nerd into a smooth-talking, lady-chasing hunk. The movie is a parody of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and, fittingly for the comedians who have played the main character, it is hilarious. The original 1963 film was even selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”

However, the recent transformation of a 16 year old girl, who “mixed some common household chemicals in a small 8 oz water bottle on the grounds of Bartow High School . . . [which] caused a small explosion that . . . produced some smoke, [but] . . . [n]o one was hurt and no damage was caused,” into a felon stretches the limits of my imagination. Unfortunately, this type of story is also culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant: the school-to-prison pipeline disproportionately affects youth of color, and women (especially women of color) continue to be underrepresented in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields – a topic even NASA has begun to address head-on.

I guess truth really is stranger than fiction.

According to reports, the student was taken into custody by a school resource officer (“SRO”) and charged with “possession/discharge of a weapon on school grounds and discharging a destructive device.” The student was subsequently expelled from school and will be charged as an adult. This is, sadly, yet another example of overly harsh school discipline practices. And a recent report from the UCLA Civil Rights Project found that, while black boys have the dubious distinction of having the highest rates of suspension, black girls in high school are suspended at higher rates than males from all other racial/ethnic groups.

The school’s own code of conduct indicates that it should take a progressive approach to discipline that that “consider[s] the student’s age, exceptionality, previous conduct, probability of a recurring violation, intent, attitude, and [the] severity of the offense.” The introduction of police officers, or SROs, into the school environment bypasses this measured and thoughtful approach and treats even minor violations as criminal acts.

The student told police that she was conducting a science experiment – according to the police report, she mixed toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil – and was just as surprised as everyone else with the result. Certainly, it’s fair to say that she made a mistake by performing an unsupervised experiment on school grounds, but shouldn’t schools be in the business of encouraging students to explore the world as opposed to locking them up? Girls, and especially girls of color, are grossly underrepresented in STEM fields. Currently, women make up nearly half of the U.S. workforce, yet they account for only 24% of STEM jobs. Women are also the majority of students on college campuses, but in 2009, they earned only 19 percent of physics bachelor’s degrees, and received only 16 percent of bachelor’s and 22 percent of master’s or doctorate degrees in engineering and engineering technologies (NWLC Fact Sheet on Title IX and STEM).

The tragedy of this situation is that this is not the first, nor is it likely to be the last, instance of kids becoming trapped in the school-to-prison pipeline for behavior that could have easily been dealt with by school personnel. The school’s defense is that students need to understand that there are consequences to their actions, but the school needs to learn that there are consequences to its actions as well:

Students suspended, expelled, or arrested in school are more likely to drop out or graduate late.
Suspended students miss class time and are more likely to do poorly in school.
Young people who do not finish high school are more likely to go to prison than students who graduate, and women without a high school diploma are especially likely to be unemployed, to earn low wages if they do find jobs, and – as a result – to have to rely on public support.

Let’s end the experiment with zero tolerance. High schools should send kids to college, not prison.