Chapter 8 Flashcards
gender plus discrimination
364
employment discrimination based on gender and some other factor such as marital status or children
gender stereotypes
the assumption that most or all members of a particular gender must act a certain way
federal protection policies
policies an employer institutes to protect the fetus or the reproductive capacity of employees
Local Considerations / Breastfeeding
as of March 23, 2010, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 2010, federal law does now require employers with 50 or more employees to provide a reasonable and private place other than a restroom and breaks for new mothers to express their milk. The breaks need not be paid unless they are normal paid breaks, and if the employer has fewer than 50 employees and the requirement presents an undue hardship, the employer need not comply.
If state law provides more rights, the employer must comply with those.
comparable worth
a title VII action for based on gender, in which jobs held mostly by women are compared with comparable jobs held mostly by men in regard to pay to determine if there is gender discrimination
Gender Discrimination case
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.94
364
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.94 was the first Title VII case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and is still widely cited. Martin Marietta involved an employer’s policy of not hiring women with preschool-aged children. No such policy applied to men with such children. The Court determined that unless the employer showed a legitimate basis for making the gender-based distinction, the policy could not stand.
Identify the section under the title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 with the provision against discrimination based on sex
equal pay act 29 usca 206(d)
Lynch v. Freeman case
when a female employee was told to use the same portable toilet as males. The court determined that the unclean (to put it mildly) toilets presented different challenges to males and females, resulting in gender disc
The EPA overlaps with Title VII’s employment on the basis of gender
The EPA overlaps with Title VII’s general prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of gender. Title VII’s Bennett Amendment was passed so that the exceptions permitted by the EPA also would be recognized by Title VII. The EPA also has a longer statute of limitations (two years from the time of the alleged violation, which may be raised to three years for willful violations, rather than 180 days under Title VII). Perhaps due to the fact that Title VII was passed very soon after the EPA, and more generally proscribed discrimination in employment, there has been less activity under the EPA than under Title VII. However, the prohibitions on pay discrimination should be considered no less important
In Pollis v. The New School for Social Research105
a professor sued her university for gender discrimination in pay because she not only made less than her similarly situated male colleagues, but the employers knew it and would not do anything about it
In County of Washington v. Gunther,106
the Court held that Title VII’s Bennett Amendment only incorporated the four EPA exceptions into Title VII, not the “substantially equal” requirement; therefore, the jobs compared in a Title VII unequal pay action need not be substantially equal
the historic AFSCME v. State of Washington108 case
was the first significant statewide case to challenge gender-based pay differences on the basis of the comparable worth theory. The state of Washington conducted studies of prevailing market rates for jobs and wages in order to determine the wages for various state jobs and found that female-dominated jobs paid lower wages than male-dominated jobs. The state then compared jobs for comparable worth and, after finding that female-dominated job salaries were generally about 20 percent less than wages in male-dominated jobs, legislated that it would begin basing its wages on comparable worth rather than the market rate, over a 10-year period
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc.110
In May 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc.110 The case once again reignited the issue of women and wages in a serious way. In the case, Lilly Ledbetter had been the victim of illegal pay discrimination over a long period of time. The employer had a policy prohibiting discussion of salaries, so Ledbetter did not discover the pay discrimination until she was given an anonymous note near her retirement. She then sued the employer for gender discrimination. The issue came down to whether the 180-day statute of limitations in the Civil Rights Act began to run 180 days after the initial act of discrimination, in which case the employee was foreclosed from bringing her cause of action, or whether it ran anew each time she was given a lower paycheck based on the discriminatory pay. The Supreme Court held that she could not sue because the statute of limitations was 180 days after the original act. The decision was roundly criticized by employees and lauded by business. Congress immediately took issue with the Court’s decision and the next month introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act [H.R. (June 22, 2007)] to amend Title VII to allow the statute of limitations to start each time a paycheck is issued based on the discriminatory pay.
Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corporation95
male employees sued for gender discrimination based on not being allowed to wear long hair, since there was no such limitation on female employees. In rejecting their claim, the court said that “distinctions in employment practices between men and women on the basis of something other than immutable or protected characteristics do not inhibit employment opportunity in violation of Title VII
Title VII does not prohibit an employer from using __________ as a basis for reasonable grooming codes.
gender
