Gender Discrimination Cases Involving Working Mothers - Research Paper Example

Gender Discrimination Cases Involving Working Mothers Gender Discrimination Cases involving Working Mothers Introduction Williams and Segal (2002) define gender discrimination as the unequal treatment of a person based on their sex. Gender discrimination in the work place is usually considered illegal if the consequences affect the conditions or terms of employment. Research indicates that gender discrimination is very rife in the U.S. and that a majority of managers does not express it openly (Williams and Segal, 2002). However, gender discrimination manifests in different forms such as offering high pay to men than women, bias in the promotion, while some managers feel that men are still superior to women with regard to certain roles in an organization (Brief, 2008). Despite this being the case, most managers are quite aware that expressing the views openly is likely put them in trouble because it is illegal. Therefore, many have opted to maintain silence so as to avoid being sued, which may cause the organization huge sums of money for damages. Nonetheless, a report reveals that many managers still remain open about their gender discrimination against working mothers. This type of gender bias is commonly referred to as “maternal wall bias.” This type of gender discrimination takes different forms such as “why leave your child at home?” Some of the working mothers are discriminated against because of their pregnancies, which makes some of employers terminate their services arguing that their conditions cannot fit their roles any more. In addition, others employers tend still perceive women as inferior, therefore, denied promotion to higher ranks within the company (Long and Damrell, 2012). It is noted that many employers for a long time have been at liberty to make such bias comments about working women without the fear of legal consequences (Brief, 2008). This is because women were not very much bothered about such comments. Nevertheless, this has changed in recent time especially with the advocacy for equality in employment and because more women are now employed in the United States. According to a survey on employment, it was found that discrimination against working mothers is still high in many companies throughout the U.S. For instance, the survey found out caregivers have a difficult time being employed in the country. This is after the report showed that the possibility of a woman with a child being employed in the country fell by more than 79%. The scenario is attributed to gender discrimination against working mothers. The report also showed that the chances of a working mothers being promoted is only 50% that of a childless woman. With regard to the salary package, the survey found out that once a woman gets a child, on average, her salary is likely to be reduced by $11thousand (Long and Damrell, 2012). Long and Damrell (2012) reveal that presently half of all U.S. workers are women who are either the sole or co-breadwinners for their families in more than half of all American population. The scenario has been accelerated by the recent economic depression that arose from the recent global financial crisis that hit the country. This shows the extent to which women have become important in the family. As a result, gender prejudice has become not just a women issue but also political and legal issue in the county. Legally, many women have began charging their employers in courts for gender bias, which has seen many companies beginning to pay a lot of money as damages resulting from gender discrimination lawsuits (Brief, 2008). Research indicates that many juries are becoming more inclined to awarding huge damages in case it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that gender discrimination might have affected the careers of mothers (Sharma, 2000). This is why the ‘family responsibility discrimination,’ which is a new field of employment law, is emerging. A research conducted by the Center for WorkLife Law shows that at least two –thirds of mothers who sue their employers in federal courts based on family responsibility discrimination win their cases at trial (Long and Damrell, 2012). This rate of success is more than double that of the victim in federal employment bias cases as a whole. The same research by the Center for WorkLife Law indicates that family responsibility lawsuits filed in state courts, federal courts and other government agencies increased by more than 400% within just a decade, that is, from 1998 to 2008 (Bhardwaj, 2005). In fact, data reveals that, with the increasing success of lawsuits on discrimination against working mothers, many mothers are increasingly suing their employers for remedies. This is placing many employers under extreme financial burdens in case the plaintiffs prevail in a lawsuit, as has always been the case in the country. Williams and Cuddy (2012) note that the exact amount of money paid by companies in the form of damages for lawsuits involving gender discrimination on working mothers is not easy to quantify because most of these cases take too long to settle while others are settled out of court. The 2007 lawsuit brought by a female delivery driver against her employer, Bimbo Bakeries prevailed at trial in which the jury awarded her $2.3 million for damages. In case, the female driver alleged that her employer then, Bimbo Bakeries one of the baked goods manufacturers in the U.S. refused to allow her to carry on with her job because she was pregnant (Gregory, 2003). The employer argued that her status could not allow her to continue with her position because it was too demanding. Nevertheless, the employer also refused transfers her to another position within the company terminating her employment. The jury through a ruling found out that the termination was discriminatory whose consequences saw the company being compelled to pay the damages. Williams and Segal (2003) note that suits on caregiver bias have in the recent past moved to the class action. Therefore, it is noted that the case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart 2011, is an example of maternal wall discrimination considered the largest class action lawsuit ever witnessed in the history of the U.S. The is a suit of, Velez v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals 2010, in which there were claims of sex discrimination, as well as maternal wall bias. This is one of the case that took many people by surprise being that Novartis AG, had been a highly respected company in the country and having been voted by Working Women magazine as one of the best company to work for, making the list of America’s top 100. Nevertheless, the suit brought against it led to the plaintiff being awarded over $250 million for damages. In one of the affidavits filed by the plaintiff, it was claimed that the company’s manager said to the young woman that he did not want to hire a young woman since “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes flextime and a baby carriage” (Williams and Cuddy 2012, par.7). Such comments were considered discriminatory because they were gender based, which did not warrant being denied the job. The lawsuit filed by a female sales representative against her employers in Lust v. Sealy, Inc., 383 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2004) also led to the plaintiff being awarded damages for gender discrimination. In this case, Lust, the female sales representative is said to have expressed her interest of getting promotion to a management position despite being required to locate. Nevertheless, her employer, Sealy, Inc. refused to promote her with her supervisor repeatedly directing blonde jokes about her asking why she keeps being a blonde. The supervisor is also alleged to have made some sexist remarks about her asking why her husband was not caring for her because she had children to take care of. As a result, she was not promoted to a management position. As a result, Lust sued the company for gender discrimination leading to an award of $1.1 million by the jury. Nevertheless, the damage was later reduced to $301,000 based on Title VII’s section on damages (Williams and Segal, 2003). Conclusion It is evident that women have come a long way in the U.S. to the status where they are today. Today, the American women are almost at par with their male counterparts, a struggle, which began over a century ago at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, women hold powerful positions in employment, which contributes greatly to the country’s development. As a result, they need to be treated as their male counterparts in place of employment without discrimination of any kind. As the women are enlightened of their rights as enshrined in the constitution, organizations have to be keen never to make statements which make be considered gender biased as this is more likely to lead to a lawsuit being brought against the company, which may be harmful. This is so since most of the gender discrimination cases in the country are being won by the plaintiff, which bring financial burden to compensate the plaintiff for damages as seen in the cases that have en brought against some of the companies in the country. References Bhardwaj, P.R. (2005). Gender discrimination: the politics of women empowerment. Belmont, CA: Anamika Publications. Brief, A.P. (2008). Diversity at Work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Gregory, R.F. (2003). Women and workplace discrimination: overcoming barriers to gender equality. New York, NY: Rutgers University Press. Long, T., & Damrell, L. (2012). Dealing with Complex Gender-Discrimination Issues in the Workplace. Retrieved from: http://www.law.com/corporatecounsel/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202579488303&Dealing_with_Complex_GenderDiscrimination_Issues_in_the_Workplace&slreturn=20121114214629. Sharma, S.A. (2000). Gender discrimination and human rights. Hoboken, NJ: K.K. Publications. Williams, J.C., & Cuddy, A.J.C. (2012). Will Working Mothers Take Your Company to Court? Retrieved from: http://hbr.org/2012/09/will-working-mothers-take-your-company-to-court/ar/1 Williams, J., & Segal, N. (2002). The New Glass Ceiling: Mothers – and Fathers – Sue for Discrimination. The Program on Gender, Work & Family. American University, Washington College of Law. Pp.5-15. Read More