Women's Take - The NWLC Blog

Continuing to Level the Playing Field: NWLC Files Amicus Brief in Ollier v. Sweetwater

pfurey — Thu, 23 May 2013 18:00:36 +0000

Posted by:

Source: IMDb

There may be no crying in baseball, but the lack of athletic opportunities available to girls in secondary schools across the country is definitely something you should be upset about. Just yesterday, the National Women's Law Center filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit in Ollier v. Sweetwater, a case brought by high school girls challenging their school's failure to provide them with equal athletic opportunities and the retaliation they faced after lodging a complaint. The brief supports the district court's ruling that the school failed to meet any part of Title IX's three-part participation test and that it retaliated against the class of girls when it fired their coach among other actions. The school district appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.

It has been over forty years since Title IX became law, yet girls still don't receive equal opportunities to play sports or equal benefits and services (such as facilities, equipment, and publicity) for their teams. Here's hoping the Ninth Circuit helps level the playing field.

You can find out more about the impact of Title IX here.

Hobby Lobby Tries Again to Take Women's Decisions on Birth Control Away from Them

pfurey — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:05:37 +0000

Posted by:

Shari Inniss-Grant, Fellow

Today, Hobby Lobby will try to explain to all the judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals why employees of a craft store chain should be denied full insurance coverage of birth control at their bosses' discretion. Hobby Lobby is the largest of the 31 for-profit companies attempting to challenge the federal birth control benefit, with over 13,000 employees who will be affected by what the judges decide.

This is Hobby Lobby's fourth try at getting a court to accept its argument that the religious beliefs of a for-profit company should overrule women's health and that it should not have to cover some forms of birth control. The district court that first denied Hobby Lobby's request to get out of providing the full birth control benefit said that any burden on its owners' religious beliefs was too "indirect and attenuated" to meet the legal standard:

"[T]he particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the corporate] plan, subsidize someone else's participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiff[s'] religion."

The 10th Circuit said "We agree" when it denied Hobby Lobby's request to temporarily get out of providing the benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court also refused to provide the "extraordinary relief" sought by Hobby Lobby.

Faced with the courts' refusals so far, Hobby Lobby took action into its own hands. It found a way to push back its plan year to delay compliance with the benefit. That means that May marks the fifth month that Hobby Lobby's 13,000 employees have worked without receiving the full insurance coverage their labor and toil is earning.

While we don't know how the court will rule, one thing is certain: when companies refuse to provide their employees with the comprehensive health insurance the law requires, it's the women who work for them and their families who suffer. The court should recognize that, and honor women's right to make their own health care decisions, free from their bosses' interference.

Unsecure Employment: House Committee Votes to Keep Workers in the Dark about Pay Disparities

pfurey — Thu, 23 May 2013 14:10:58 +0000

Posted by:

Valarie Hogan, Fellow

There are many things that the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") does to protect Americans: DHS' mission includes everything from preventing terrorism and enhancing security to managing our borders and ensuring disaster resilience. However, DHS does NOT currently protect the Americans employed by its contractors and subcontractors from retaliation for discussing wages with coworkers.

Yesterday, Representative Rosa DeLauro introduced an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act that would bar contractors and subcontractors doing business with DHS from retaliating against employees who discuss their wages. Seems reasonable, right? Punitive pay secrecy policies allow employers to maintain discriminatory practices and the threat of retaliation makes employees feel powerless. Who would object to non-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions, you may ask?

Twenty-six members of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Rather than supporting the rights of employees to seek out pay disparities and combat wage discrimination, the committee passed a substitute amendment that substituted all of the substance of the DeLauro amendment with hot air.

Policies and practices that keep employees, particularly women and people of color, in the dark about pay disparities diminish their ability to enforce their rights, and the fear of retaliation creates a "chilling effect" on any discussions about wages, allowing discriminatory pay practices to flourish.

The Department of Homeland Security is charged with securing our nation from the many threats we face, and much of the work they do is accomplished through government contracts. The salaries for the members of Congress are publicly available, which gives members the security of knowing that they are being paid fairly. They and their staff are able to have conversations about salary. Don't we owe the same protection to all of the men and women who provide services to secure the country?

Take Action: Call your member and ask how they plan to support equal pay! (202) 224-3121.

West Virginia Crisis Pregnancy Center Locates Next to Abortion Provider

pfurey — Wed, 22 May 2013 14:15:28 +0000

Posted by:

Kelli Garcia, Senior Counsel

The Women's Health Center of West Virginia, a full service health clinic and abortion provider just got a new neighbor, the Women's Choice Pregnancy Resource Center. Women's Choice isn't a health clinic and it doesn't provide medical services. Instead, it offers counseling to try to persuade women not to have an abortion and provides free pregnancy tests, some diapers and some baby clothes. But, would you know the difference just from the names? Imagine how easy it would be for a woman looking for Women's Health Center to walk into Women's Choice instead, thinking, perhaps, that it is an affiliated clinic offering pregnancy and abortion care. It is called Women's Choice, after all, suggesting that it supports choice rather than an ideological anti-abortion agenda. In fact, it used to be called Lifeline of Charleston but changed its name in 2002. Referring to the name change, Sharon Lewis, the executive director of Women's Health Center, noted, "[M]y only conclusion is that that's part of a deceptive practice to get women in there because they're confused, thinking that they're going to a reproductive-health center."

These tactics — locating near an abortion provider, using a misleading name — are all common ways in which Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) try to get women into their doors. Unfortunately, deceptive practices by CPCs are fairly common and they don't stop with advertising and location. Many CPCs provide inaccurate information about abortion, birth control and even the laws related to abortions — all with the goal of keeping women from having an abortion. This isn't right. To help end these practices, NWLC has launched Expose the Truth: A Toolkit on Using State Consumer Protection Laws to Document the Deceptive Practices of Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

If you would like to like to file a complaint, visit our Toolkit or contact us by phone at 1(855)CPC-FACT or email cpcfact@nwlc.org.

Sorry, Senator Grassley, We Need More Judges on the D.C. Circuit

pfurey — Tue, 21 May 2013 21:15:24 +0000

Posted by:

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

The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the nomination of Sri Srinivasan to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals at its executive business meeting last Thursday. Lest anyone become confused and interpret this bipartisan support as a sign that the determined obstruction that has kept all four vacant seats on the D.C. Circuit empty might relent, Senator Grassley proposed in his opening statement that the Committee hold hearings on the D.C. Circuit's workload "before we move on any further D.C. Circuit nominations, beyond that of the current nominee." This follows on the heels of Senator Grassley's introduction of legislation that would, in defiance of reality, recent history, and the reasoned judgment of the United States Judicial Conference, strip the D.C. Circuit of three seats. Instead, the "Court Efficiency Act" would add two seats to other circuits (one to the Eleventh and one to the Second).

First, the facts. There are currently four vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, one of which (and the seat to which the highly qualified Caitlin Halligan was nominated) has been vacant since Chief Justice Roberts was elevated in 2005. In addition to lacking over one-third of its authorized judges, the Circuit's specialized and complex caseload definitely justifies filling the rest of the current vacancies. As Chief Justice Roberts has written, one-third of D.C. Circuit appeals are from agency decisions. Often, these administrative law appeals have enormous documentary records, implicate complex statutes and agency guidance, and may involve numerous parties and amici curiae — making them far more time-consuming than other types of cases. In any event, since the last judge was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit (Thomas Griffith, in 2005), the caseload has increased more than 50% from 119 pending cases per active judge to 188 pending cases per active judge.

Second, the history. It is astonishing that President Obama has not yet had a single nominee confirmed to this important court. In contrast, President George W. Bush had four judges confirmed, President Clinton and the first President Bush each had three, and President Reagan had a staggering eight judges confirmed. Indeed, in the face of the repeated filibusters of the eminently qualified Caitlin Halligan (and the threatened filibusters of half a dozen of President Obama's Executive Branch nominees) it is difficult to interpret the assertions of Senator Grassley and his colleagues as anything other than partisan obstruction.

Third, the experts. The United States Judicial Conference is explicitly tasked with evaluating the workload of different courts and recommending on that basis whether courts should add — or subtract — judges to meet those workloads. Most recently, the Judicial Conference recommended adding four judges to the Ninth Circuit and one to the Sixth Circuit. Strangely enough, the Conference neither suggested removing judges from the D.C. Circuit nor adding judges to the Second or Eleventh Circuits, as Senator Grassley's legislation proposes. See paragraph above for how to interpret Senator Grassley's proposal accordingly.

So let's agree to call out this preemptive filibuster threat for what it is: a naked attempt to keep what is widely considered the second-most important court in the country barely functioning and, more importantly, keeping all who rely on the courts for justice from receiving the timely and well-reasoned judgments to which they are entitled. The D.C. Circuit is woefully understaffed and needs all the judges that have been authorized to that court. And people around the country are waiting for justice.

Breaking News - Abortion Ban Struck Down!

pfurey — Tue, 21 May 2013 20:10:56 +0000

Posted by:

Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel

Good news! The Ninth Circuit has struck down Arizona's law [PDF] that would ban abortions after 20 weeks gestation. The court said what we have been saying all along: this law is unconstitutional. "Because [the law] deprives the women to whom it applies of the ultimate decision to terminate their pregnancies prior to fetal viability, it is unconstitutional under a long line of invariant Supreme Court precedents." (Emphasis my own.)

This decision overturned a lower court's decision upholding Arizona's law. In doing so, the court rejected Arizona's argument that the law did not actually prohibit abortion because it allowed abortions in cases of medical emergencies. Seeing through this argument, the Court had this pointed response: "Allowing a physician to decide if abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term." Enough said.

While we take a moment to sigh relief that a court has stopped this type of unconstitutional legislation pushed by extreme politicians seeking to interfere with women's decisionmaking, the fight isn't over yet. Indeed, in just two days, the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice is holding a hearing on a 20 week ban bill introduced by Rep. Trent Franks. Although it currently only tries to ban abortions in D.C. (as if that weren't bad enough), Rep. Franks has announced his intention to change it so that it applies nationwide. I hope Rep. Franks and others pushing these bans read the Ninth Circuit's opinion and reflect on what they are doing — denying a woman the decision whether to carry her own pregnancy to term. Rep. Franks and others don't walk in those women's shoes. They shouldn't be able to then deny women the right to make that important decision for themselves.

What Would You Spend Money On: Fighting Over the Debt Limit or Child Care for Military Dependents?

pfurey — Tue, 21 May 2013 19:15:00 +0000

Posted by:

Katherine Gallagher Robbins, Senior Policy Analyst

Here we go again. After a three month hiatus, the debt ceiling has gone back into effect and the federal government officially hit the limit last Sunday. This means the Treasury has begun its extraordinary measures to keep us from defaulting. These measures will extend the time until we would actually default until sometime after the summer — but the debt limit brinksmanship still has consequences. In fact, the Government Accountability Office estimates [PDF] last time we were in this situation "delays in raising the debt limit in 2011 led to an increase in Treasury's borrowing costs of about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011."

But what does $1.3 billion really mean? How about this: $1.3 billion is the annual base budget for the Department of Defense's Child Care and Youth Programs. This money goes to child care providers, as well as child and youth development programs. Next year it is estimated to serve more than 200,000 children of military families.

This comes on the heels of another egregious money waster — the 37th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare") which passed the House last week. As I tweeted last week , the $52.4 million taxpayer dollars wasted on the first 36 repeal votes is more than twice the Dept. of Justice's annual budget for its sexual assault services program.

It's time for Congress to stop wasting time and money. They need to get their priorities straight and focus on supporting the needs of hard-working women and families rather than on playing political games.

Bill Introduced to Curb Crisis Pregnancy Centers' Deceptive Practices

pfurey — Tue, 21 May 2013 18:20:34 +0000

Posted by:

Charlotte Cassel, Intern

On Thursday, U.S. Senators Robert Menendez, Frank R. Lautenberg, Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney introduced a bill aimed at curbing deceptive and misleading advertising practices by Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). The "Stop Deceptive Advertising For Women's Services Act" would require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue and enforce rules prohibiting CPCs from advertising with the intent to create the impression that they provide abortion services. If passed, this bill would be a major step forward in protecting women and their health. As Representative Maloney said, "those [centers] that practice bait-and-switch should be held accountable so that pregnant women are not deceived at an extremely vulnerable time in their lives."

CPCs often advertise under "abortion services" leading women to believe that they will be seeing an abortion provider when they visit the CPC, or, at the very least, will be seeing someone who will provide accurate information on, and referrals for, abortion care. CPCs set up shop near abortion providers and select names similar to full service clinics. CPCs frequently provide misleading information, telling women, for example, that an abortion is unlikely to be necessary because most pregnancies are not viable. The goal is to delay women until it is too late or too costly to obtain an abortion.

Women deserve to know the truth about their health care options, and not be intentionally misled. The Stop Deceptive Advertising For Women's Services Act would be a step in the right direction. In the meantime, state consumer protection laws may also provide protection. If you or someone you know has been harmed by deceptive CPC practices, you can file a complaint with your state's consumer protection agency.

Visit our Toolkit to learn more or contact us by phone at 1(855)CPC-FACT or email cpcfact@nwlc.org.

Apple is a Tax Dodger. Blame the Tax Code.

pfurey — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:25:34 +0000

Posted by:

Julie Vogtman, Senior Counsel

This morning, a Senate subcommittee is holding a hearing on "Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code," which will include testimony from Apple CEO Tim Cook, as well as Apple's CFO and Head of Tax Operations.

You might ask why Apple is the subject of this congressional scrutiny; after all, Apple did pay about $6 billion in taxes in the U.S. last year on its American operations, which is more than some major corporations that managed to avoid paying any federal income tax at all. But as Senator John McCain observed, while "Apple claims to be the largest U.S. corporate taxpayer... by sheer size and scale, it is also among America's largest tax avoiders."

Specifically, a new report from congressional investigators concludes that Apple used a web of offshore tax shelters to avoid paying billions in taxes to the United States and other countries. The investigators found that Apple's tax avoidance strategies shielded at least $74 billion from the Internal Revenue Service between 2009 and 2012. By officially locating subsidiaries in places like Ireland while managing them from company headquarters in California, Apple was able to, in effect, make the subsidiaries "stateless" — so they were exempt from taxes anywhere in the world. In its own analysis of Apple's financial reports, Citizens for Tax Justice found that "Apple has paid almost no income taxes to any country on its $102 billion in offshore cash holdings."

Pretty sneaky, right? But that doesn't mean it's illegal. The U.S. tax code makes it awfully easy for Apple and other giant corporations to avoid paying taxes. For example, thanks to a policy known as "deferral," it is perfectly legal for companies to delay paying taxes on profits made overseas, which means corporations get more favorable tax treatment if they ship jobs and profits offshore than if they invest at home. As Apple's case makes clear, these unfair tax breaks cost the federal government billions of dollars each year. And those dollars could be used to strengthen our economy and support programs that help women and their families.

For example, just ending deferral would raise about $60.6 billion in a year — more than the federal government spends annually on Head Start, child care assistance, school meals, and education for disadvantaged children combined:

With programs that low-income women and families depend on — like Head Start, child care, and housing assistance — facing deeper sequestration cuts every day, it's appalling to continue tax giveaways to the rich and powerful. It's time for tax reform that makes Apple and other profitable corporations pay their fair share.

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.