Gender Discrimination in the Workforce

Although on that point keep back been decades of hard win civil rights gains for wo men, we do non yet tarry in a sexual activity blind society. Sexism perpetuates a cycle of unfulfilled aspirations among women. Public policies ar organism scrutinized low ever stricter statutory microscopes, and an atmosphere of edginess intimately the future pervades our national consciousness a future beset with economic challenges from abroad, technological entry at home, a demographic revolution in our surveyforce, and a re-stratification of society. Restrictions on womens access to and engagement in the workforce take on the occupy spreading and the glass detonating device.We will discuss the chthonicmenti matchlessd laws that pack helped women make principal(prenominal) strides in the workforce, cracking (but non breaking) the glass ceiling so they could climb up the corporate ladder the 1963 touch on look at comprise, backing VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exe cutive coiffes 11246/11375, the 1968 come along disparity in Employment Act, and the 1978 maternalism secernment Act. In addition, we will will reasons for the continuing network distinction against young-bearing(prenominal)s, a recent case study of permeative gender dis savvy resulting in a 152. 5 billion dollar ettlement by one hale k in a flashn employer who was sued, and locomote women clear germinate to appease making strides toward an pertain opportunity workforce. Legislation requiring embody cave in for women was first introduced in 1945 in credit of womens war work. Business owners and labor brass sections succeeded in thwarting the effort, in part because of the perceived command for women to result the labor force to create vacancies for return(a) servicemen. By the end of the 1950s, policymakers were decorous concerned close insufficient use of womanpower.In 1963, relation back passed the Equal allowance Act as an amendment to the Fair Labor St andards Act of 1938 to imply employers to pay tinct wages to men and women doing disturb work on jobswhich require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and argon per rolled under similar on the job(p) conditions. The Equal pass on Act was the first federal official effort to take out favouritism by private employers on the home of gender. The Equal Pay Act has limitations in its enforcement of defend women for skilful- sentence, form- round workers, the 2009 American Community Survey median(prenominal) gelt for women were 78. 2 ercent of mens earnings $35,549 comp ard with $45,485. Further much, womens earnings were lower than mens in all of the 50 states. One division after passing the Equal Pay Act, Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it unlawful to discriminate base on a persons race, religion, color, or commove. Title VII attacks sex variety to a greater cessation broadly than the Equal Pay Act extending not totally to wages but to compe nsation, stern, conditions, or privileges of troth.Thus with the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, an employer cannot deny women equal pay for equal work, deny women transfers, romotions, or wage increases, manipulate job evaluations to regulate womens pay, or intentionally segregate men and women into jobs according to their gender. In 1971 Reed v. Reed became the first case that the unequivocal judicatory would uphold Title VII to, and then protecting women from sex unlikeness. One year quest the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued executive director separate 11246 as a directive as to how the act should be interpreted and followed. Executive oldenure 11246 prohibited public and g all everywherenment sector employers from iscriminating ground on race, color, religion, or national origin, but not sex. Executive Order 11246 was amended by Executive Order 11375 on October 13, 1967 after sexual torment became an issue. Sex would today be embroild as a category that could not be discriminated against by an employer. Executive Order 11375 meant to ensure that women would not be exploited sexually to advance their c atomic number 18ers. Women were to now be protect in the workplace from supervisors and coworkers who did not take into consideration the concept of personal space or offensive language and conduct.Legal regulations now banned these behaviors and legal pull by means of could be taken if they did occur. Executive Order 11375 meant women should no longer have to worry about being discriminated against in the workplace in terms of being hired or released. Executive Order 11375 meant that Affirmative Action (of Executive Order 11246) now utilize to women as well. Affirmative Action is an organizations active effort to find opportunities to hire or promote people in a particular group (in this instance, women). Affirmative Action plans essential consist of an equal opportunity policy statement, an su mmary of he current work force, identification of underrepresented areas, the government activity of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, precise action-oriented programs to orchestrate problem areas, support for community action programs, and the mental home of an internal audit and reporting system. Contractors receiving to a greater extent than $10,000 from the federal government must(prenominal) take approbatory action, and those especial(a) $50,000 must develop a written affirmative action plan for each of their establishments. The plan must be in place within cxx days of the beginning of the contract.Employers whose contracts meet minimum size requirements must engage in affirmative action to ensure against discrimination. Employers must consider all pendant individuals for employment, must choose without regard to gender (now a protected category), and must engage in outreach to countenance the broadest possible group o f qualified individuals to enter the offer or applicant pool. In 1967 Congress passed the Age inequality in Employment Act. The ADEA branches from the debate on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the asis of race, color, national origin, or sex, but not age. President Lyndon Johnson strongly believed that age was a maturement issue among Americans. This law prohibits discrimination of men and women employees over the age of 40 and forbids companies to base employment determinations all on an applicants age. The Equal fortune Commission enforces this act but there are even numerous complaints filed yearly from workers who are experiencing discrimination because of their age. For m each years, elderly workers have felt that they are losing out to their younger coworkers.The Age Discrimination in Employment Act attempts to eliminate the gap amidst younger and one-time(a) employees. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to championshipes with 15 or more employees working 20 or more weeks per year including employees in state and local government, federal government, employment agencies, and labor organizations. The ADEA helps protect unlawful discrimination of older individuals that can occur when applying or interviewing for jobs. The Age Discrimination Act protects employees by prohibiting employers to include age preferences or limitations in job applications and advertisements.Under the ADEA it is not expressly interdict to ask an applicants age, but it is nearly examined to make sure the query was made for a legitimate purpose. Despite the Age Discrimination Act, The exacting Court recently changed what qualifies as successfully turn up age discrimination. Companies come up with multiple reasons wherefore an employee is terminated without mentioning age, when in actuality the employees age is the only factor. Seniors are a growing population and many are planning to work past their seclusio n age. Discrimination against age is not only poignant individual employees but ociety as a whole. An employee now has to prove that their age was the furbish up reason for their employers actions, therefore older workers can barely force or prosecute age discrimination. In 2007, 60-year-old okeh City Teacher Judy Jones filed an age discrimination causal agent against the superintendant who eliminated her teaching position and reassigned her to an office job as a principal. Judys salary decreased and benefits were stirred during her certify year as principal, while prepare directors and the superintendant himself frequently commented on Judys age and seclusion plans.The district dally rejected her claim because she could not show sufficient evidence that her age was the furbish up reason for her relocated position and reduced pay. in that location have been successful outcomes to Age Discrimination campaigns as the U. S. Equal Opportunity Commission recently aerated two companies with age discrimination. A 70-year- old chemist at the Honolulu Kmart was awarded $120,000 after higher counsel habitually commented on, and wrote about, her elderly age, causing her humiliation and compel her to retire. In anformer(a) case, a 75-year-old qualified receptionist was fire establish on ge after her second day at work at ablaze(p) Rock Western Jeep Tours Inc. She filed a lawsuit and it was settled in a $35,000 payout. The gestation period Discrimination Act of 1978 defines discrimination on the basis of m early(a)hood and childbirth or any former(a) form of illegal sex discrimination. This act is meant to ensure that no woman will be subject to non-hire by an employer out-of-pocket(p) to pregnancy. She is to be sueed the same(p) as any other(a) individual and is to be guaranteed benefits and accommodations based on the same policies and procedures as any other employee with a disability.Pregnancy discrimination occurs when expectant haves are fired, not hired, or otherwise discriminated against due to their pregnancy or intention to become pregnant. Common forms of pregnancy discrimination include not being hired due to visible pregnancy or managelihood of change state pregnant, being fired after informing an employer of ones pregnancy, being fired during gestation discontinue, and receiving a pay dock due to ones pregnancy. In 1978, the U. S. Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an amendment to the sex discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Pregnancy DiscriminationAct states that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or cogitate medical exam conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. This clause skip overs employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. Title VII in addition applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. Women who are pregnant or bear on by pregnancy -related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations. An employer whitethorn not individual(a) out pregnancy related conditions to determine an mployees ability to work. However, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctors statement concerning their inability to work beforehand granting draw or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy-related conditions to submit such statements. If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job because of her pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same way as any other temporarily disabled employee. Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs.If an employee has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy-related condition nd recovers, her employer may not require her to remain on feed until the babys birth. An employer likewise may not have a rule that prohib its an employee from returning to work for a predetermined length of time after childbirth. Employers must hold spread a position for a woman who has been absent due to pregnancy-related issues for the same length of time jobs are held open for employees on sick or disability leave. any(prenominal) health insurance allow ford by an employer must cover expenses for pregnancy- related conditions on the same basis as costs for other medical conditions. An employer need ot come through health insurance for expenses arising from abortion, except when the life of the mother is endangered. Pregnancy-related expenses should be reimbursed exactly as those incurred for other medical conditions, whether payment is on a fixed basis or a pctage of a specific amount. The amounts payable by the insurance provider can be limited only to the same extent of amounts payable for other conditions. No additional, increased, or larger deductible can be imposed. Employers must provide the same level o f health benefits for spouses of female employees as they do for spouses of male employees.Pregnancy-related benefits cannot be limited to marital employees. Benefits must be provided for pregnancy-related conditions to unmarried women if benefits are provided to employees for other medical conditions. If an employer provides any benefits to workers on leave, the employer must provide the same benefits for those on leave for pregnancy-related conditions. Employees on leave because of pregnancy-related conditions must be treated the same as other temporarily disabled employees for accumulation and crediting of seniority, spend calculation, pay increases, and short disability benefits.A case that was important to the creation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was muser v. Oregon (1908). The Supreme Court upheld a decision limiting women to 10 hour workdays based on the idea that performance of maternal functions made women inherently incapable of the same work that men did. In th e 1950s and 1960s, laws in several states prohibited women from working and others banned their hiring for some length of time before and after birth. Reasons for the continuing network discrimination against women include myths about female workers, conscious and unconscious stereotyping and biasing applied by many white en who are desperate to keep their competitive edge over women, and inadequate reporting and dissemination of nurture pertaining to glass-ceiling issues. The following myths about female employees, despite being disproved, still exist women executives refuse to work long hours or relocate, and many women executives take leave of absences (and that those who go on federally and state protected maternity leave have suddenly lost professional believability upon becoming pregnant or taking temporary leave). Statistics show women executives work 56 hours per week on average the same as their ale counterparts. Only 14 percent refused to relocate as compared to 20 perce nt of the men.Only one-third of female executives surveyed had ever taken a leave of absence and 82 percent of these were for maternity leave or other family reasons protected under FMLA. Finally, there can be a ill-shapen perception that women executives lose their professional credibility upon becoming pregnant or taking maternity leave an out of sight, out of mind mantra held by their bosses. Furthermore, a pregnant woman obviously has priorities outside of work and a selfish mployer may have the erroneous expectation of work being a sole priority. Research suggests that an underlying cause of the glass ceiling is the perception of many white males that they as a group are losing losing competitive advantage, losing control, and losing opportunity as a direct consequence of inclusion of women. there is also a difference barrier manifested through conscious and unconscious stereotyping and bias. People who do hiring tint most comfortable hiring people who look like them. R ecruiters for high- attitude jobs are predominately white males who then hire other white males from the same socio- conomic status, which helps perpetuate their over-representation in the shell jobs. Governmental barriers include the collection and disaggregation of employment related data which make it difficult to ascertain the status of various groups at the managerial level. There also continues to be inadequate reporting and dissemination of information pertaining to glass ceiling issues. Most importantly, there call for to be consistent monitoring and enforcement of laws and policies already on the books. The following case demonstrates how costly illegal gender discrimination can be to employersIn may 2010, a jury in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of refreshing York awarded a disposition $250 million in punitive damages to 5,600 female sales employees in a sexual discrimination case after Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Novartis) took the lawsu it filed against them to court and lost. In July 2010, the parties reached a $152 million settlement agreement of the plaintiffs claims of gender discrimination in the terms and conditions of their employment, including compensation, progress/promotional opportunities, reviews, and pregnancy leave. The terms of this greement allow for full compensation of former and current female employees go out from 2002-2010, ensuring that every woman who worked at Novartis over the past 8 years was compensated fairly.As part of the settlement, Novartis must also spend an additional $22. 5 million over the next three years on anti-discrimination policies, programs, and training, as well as on fortify its employee complaint process. Novartis was separateed to increase its Human preference and Employment Relations staff within cardinal months of the effective state of the settlement agreement ensuring that there would be ne Employment Relations research worker for every 1,000 Novartis emp loyees. A Compliance Master would be appointed as an external specialist for the New York Federal Court to monitor Novartiss accordance with the settlement agreements terms and conditions. move that women can take to continue making strides toward an equal opportunity workforce are to show themselves as decision makers, risk-takers, and players. Furthermore, a female manager should do her best to remove gender biases from her own business practices by not comparing her employees to men at the top.In Conclusion, women are just a few steps closer to being looked at as equal to men due to these legal acts. Women now have fewer restrictions and more rights within the workforce. The 1963 Equal Pay Act and 1964 Title VII brought women higher pay and more equal opportunity. Women are now eyesight the benefits of Executive Order 11375 which included protection from any sexual harassment. In 1967 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was put into place to include age from discriminatio n, and women benefited from the insistence that age should not bar a capable and qualified person from working.In 1978 the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was implemented so that pregnancy did not determine a womans ability to work it also ensured that she received the same benefits as anyone else with a disability. Furthermore, even today women are fighting to have fair rights within the workplace. fifty-fifty with the legal clauses, women are faced with stereotypes and glass-ceiling barriers. In order for women to overcome the problems they are tackling, to truly be protected and to have the rights that they deserve, there must be changeless reinforcement of the laws that are currently in place.