Laid Off? You Still Have Rights! Part 2: Are You a Statistic?
Published by James Peters November 17th, 2008 in DiscriminationThis is our second post in a series on employees' rights when they get laid-off from work. In our last post, I pointed out that even though an employee may have been "laid-off" with several other employees, that does not necessarily mean they were not wrongfully terminated in being chosen for layoff. This post deals with the situation where a large group may be "singled out" for wrongful termination.
For example, one of the most prevalent forms of class action employment law claims following a layoff is based on age discrimination. A company often decides that the best way to cut costs in a layoff is to get rid of those with the most seniority, because they are usually the ones with the highest compensation.
However, California employment laws state that where an employer terminates an employee because of their high compensation relative to other employees, that is proof of age discrimination where the high compensation is a result of that employee's age.
In other situations, the "decider" of who stays and who goes in a layoff may have their own biases (conscious or unconscious) against certain groups of people based on race, gender, national origin or other protected characteristics.
The easiest way to prove this sort of discrimination is through statistics. I have seen many layoffs where only those over 40 are laid off and then later replaced by new employees fresh out of college. Similar evidence can be used where a male decision maker only lays off the females because the men have families at home.
Sometimes the only way to tell if this sort of thing is occurring at the time without the benefit of statistics is through anecdotal evidence. However, under federal employment law if you are part of a mass layoff and over 40 your employer in most cases must provide you with a list of all other employees being laid off, including their ages and position.
Table of Contents for This Series
- Laid Off? You Still Have Rights! Part 1: Is Something Fishy?
- Laid Off? You Still Have Rights! Part 2: Are You a Statistic?
- Laid Off? You Still Have Rights! Part 3: Get Your Vacation Pay
7 Comments DISCLAIMER
Family Status Discrimination and Equal Pay Laws
Published by James Peters June 22nd, 2008 in DiscriminationThis post is part of our ongoing series dealing with "family status" discrimination. Family status claims implicate several employment laws, depending on the facts of a given case. For example, the federal Equal Pay Act ("EPA") and also California law mandate "equal pay" between men and women.
The fact that women disproportionately care for children in the United States is likely a direct contributor to the fact that women still tend to make less money for doing the same work, despite the EPA and other laws. This is because such discrimination is often subtle.
For example, a woman might take time off to care for children and when she returns to work make less money than her male counterparts because they have more "seniority". While this might be legitimate, "seniority" is sometimes used as a synonym for "loyalty" or "dependability" in reference to the possibility of the woman leaving again to have another child or as punishment for leaving before.
Additionally, mothers who remain in the workforce after having children often start working part-time hours and the other employees often receive a higher rate of pay for "full-time" work. Reducing a part-time worker's salary is not per se illegal, but there are certainly pitfalls. For example, if mothers who switch to part-time have their salary reduced, then it still must be comparable to part-time male workers. Also, if a woman cuts her hours by 50% and her pay is reduced by 70%, then it can be argued she is being "penalized" for working less.
While not always illegal, an employer would likely have to prove that this is the same rate ALL part-time workers have their wages reduced by and/or that there is a legitimate business reason for doing so.
Table of Contents for This Series
- Family Status Discrimination Series
- "Moral" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
- "Assumption" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
- Family Status Discrimination and Equal Pay Laws
0 Comments DISCLAIMER
"Assumption" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
Published by James Peters May 17th, 2008 in DiscriminationThis is our third post in our series on "family status" discrimination. The last post dealt with examples of "moral stereotyping" where an employer's belief on what women should do motivates their discrimination. This post deals with what I call "assumption" stereotyping, which deals with instances where an employer is motivated by their beliefs about what women will do, given their family status.
In these situations, the employer's concerns about how an employee or job applicant's home life could affect their job performance are often valid in theory, but not in application. In cases such as these the employer only assumes that the employee will not be willing or able to do the job and has no reason (other than stereotypical views of women) to make their assumptions.
One common example is where an applicant is not hired because the employer assumes she will not be willing or able to work the long hours the job requires because of her (assumed) duties at home. However, it is quite possible that the husband/father or another family member has taken on some of the childcare duties to allow her to work more. Because this decision relies on the employer's stereotypical assumptions about women, this could constitute illegal discrimination.
It is true that it might be valid in certain cases not to hire an employee because she cannot perform the job due to family responsibilities, but the employer would have to have some actual proof on which to base their decision. For example, if during the interview the employer mentioned the job would require her to work no less than 80 hours per week and the applicant responded that she could not possibly work more than 40 hours with two kids at home, then this could be a valid reason not to hire her.
One oft-cited case of this type is Trezza v. Hartford, Inc., 1998 WL 912101 (S.D.N.Y.). In that case, an attorney was not even considered for a promotion because it would have required extensive travel. Her employers simply assumed that she would not be interested in the position because of her family and promoted a less-qualified man instead.
The employee was also told that once her husband made enough money she would be "sitting at home eating bon bons" and the company's vice president commented on the "incompetence and laziness of working mothers".
Table of Contents for This Series
- Family Status Discrimination Series
- "Moral" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
- "Assumption" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
- Family Status Discrimination and Equal Pay Laws
2 Comments DISCLAIMER
"Moral" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
Published by James Peters May 3rd, 2008 in DiscriminationThis is my second post in our multi-part series on "family status" discrimination, which is becoming more and more common under both federal and state law.
There are many ways family status discrimination can happen in the workplace, some of which are very subtle and difficult to prove. Other types are not subtle at all, such as the topic of today's post, which is what I call "Moral Stereotyping".
Moral Stereotyping Defined
Generally in family status discrimination claims the employer is largely concerned about how the employee's caregiver responsibilities affect them, such as increased absences, less dedication to the job, less focus, unreliability, etc. However. one of the unique aspects of moral stereotyping is that the employer is often more concerned about the well-being of the employee, her child her family or other paternalistic rationale.
Yes, it is true that even in 2008 there are many employers out there who still believe a woman "belongs" at home and that their primary duty is to raise children even to take care of their husband. In these situations, employers might even terminate an employee (to their own detriment) in an effort to force the employee to do what they believe is "right".
Some commonly-cited motivations based on this theory are discussed below.
"Women Belong at Home"
The notion that a woman simply "belongs at home" is the most common way in which these issues are expressed by management. This is a prime example of the sorts of gender stereotypes that foster discrimination against these employees.
The motivation here is not necessarily what is best for the employee or her child, but instead what the employer thinks she "should" do based on traditional gender roles. These employers think that even if the wife makes twice as much as her husband, she should quit her job to raise the children.
A more poignant way of expressing this can be found in Knussman v. Maryland, 272 F.3d 625 (4th Cir. 2001), where the employee was simply told "God made women to have babies". Speaking of God, several employers do cite their religious views as a basis for this discrimination, which exposes the employer to an additional claim for religious discrimination.
"Children Need Their Mothers"
The traditional notion that children must spend as much time as possible with their mothers is certainly ingrained in our society. This category of cases usually involves an employer who believes they know what is best for the child and believes they are acting in the child's best interest when they terminate or failure to hire the employee.
For example, in Moore v. Alabama State University, 980 F.Supp. 426 (MD Ala 1997), the employee's supervisor told her he believed women should stay at home with their family and denied her a promotion because the new job would involve too much travel for a "married mother", despite the fact that she applied for the job and had already worked out a plan with her husband to accommodate the travel.
Moral stereotyping is not limited to male management employees. Often these issues can come into play when an employee's female supervisor either has grown children or grandchildren and holds strong views on these issues they are not afraid to make known.
A variation on this theme is where an employee's supervisor expresses their belief that placing a child in day care is harmful to their development.
Men are the Breadwinners
Gender stereotypes are also commonly used against men. It is no longer unusual for a husband to drop down to part-time when a child is born while his wife, who might make more money than he does, continues to work full-time.
In certain testosterone-fueled workplaces, this can lead to harassment of "Mr. Mom" by co-workers or he might simply be denied the opportunity to work part-time, even though females are allowed to do so.
This type of claim is rapidly becoming more common as working mothers continue to enter the workplace and men volunteer to help with caregiver duties.
"Reverse" Caregiver Discrimination
Occasionally I come across a case where an employee has suffered "reverse" caregiver discrimination.
For example, if a layoff occurs in a company and a supervisor decides to terminate an above-average, single male employee and instead keep the below-average, married father of two.
In California, this more of an example of "marital status" discrimination, which is specifically prohibited under California law, but these facts could also constitute family status discrimination.
I use this example here because the supervisor is simply applying his own stereotypes and morals to "protect" the man with a family based on his own morals and values instead of what is "fair" to the better-performing employee or what is in the company's best interest.
Bringing Moral Stereotyping Cases
Moral stereotyping cases tend to be the most lucrative and easiest to prove among the various types of caregiver discrimination for a number of reasons.
First, they often involve the most inflammatory evidence that is offensive to the highest number of potential jurors. If a supervisor testifies to his belief that "God made women to have babies" and that this belief was why he did not hire the plaintiff, you can bet that many on the jury may be quite hostile towards the company when awarding the plaintiff damages.
Second, the supervisor who takes the wrongful actions against a plaintiff in such as case is often quite vocal about their motivations when they terminate or refuse to hire because (1) they truly believe they are doing the "right" thing, (2) they want the employee to know that this is the "right" thing and (3) it never crosses their mind that they are handing the employee a substantial lawsuit by "lecturing" them.
Table of Contents for This Series
- Family Status Discrimination Series
- "Moral" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
- "Assumption" Stereotyping as Family Status Discrimination
- Family Status Discrimination and Equal Pay Laws
0 Comments DISCLAIMER
Family Status Discrimination Series
Published by James Peters April 16th, 2008 in Discrimination, Harassment, Medical LeavesOne employment law claim that has been quickly becoming more popular these days is "family status discrimination". That is, discriminating against someone based on their familial obligations or simply because they have a family in the first place.
Widespread use of this claim is so recent that it does not even have a consistent name in legal circles. We call it "family status discrimination", but others call it "family responsibilities discrimination", "FSD" or "FRD" for short, "caregiver discrimination" and countless other names, but they are all the same idea.
This post is the first in a series on the subject which is fairly expansive, quite interesting and can also get confusing.
The Impetus
The reason I bring this subject up now is because I just started a case representing two women against the same former employer who violated almost all of the various family status discrimination theories in dealing with one or both of them.
It is a very interesting case for several reasons, not the least of which is the ironic twist that the employer is an organization that actively promotes equality for women and the building of strong families as its mission.
While settlement discussions are under way, I cannot speak too much about this case in particular, but if it does end up in litigation I will post more details such as the identity of the employer.
The Legal Basis
I should first point out that the term "family status" is not mentioned anywhere in federal or California employment law statutes.
Instead, these claims are based on other existing employment laws, such as gender, marital status or pregnancy discrimination. The Family Medical Leave Act, California Family Rights Act, Pregnancy Disability Leave and other statutes also come into play.
Family status discrimination is one of those areas where employee-rights attorneys are very "creative" in crafting their legal theories. New ways of approaching the claims are constantly being tested in courts across the country and often prevailing.
This series is meant to be an exploration of these various theories and how they can be used under California law to protect employees.
Table of Contents for This Series
6 Comments DISCLAIMER
Schwarzenegger "Terminates" Employee Rights (Part 3)-Family Values?
Published by James Peters November 5th, 2007 in Discrimination, Medical Leaves, Policy : LegislationThis is our final installment in a series dealing with employee rights laws that California's legislature passed in 2007, but which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed last month before they could take effect.
SB 836
Senate Bill 836 was heralded nationwide as the first law prohibiting employer discrimination against employees based on their "family status".
For example, discrimination against employees who are single parents who have to take their child to the doctor would be prohibited. Also, if the child is sick at home and has nobody else to care for them, the employee could actually take protected, unpaid leave to do so.
I think this bill was a step in the right direction, but I do have to agree that its reach was far to broad to avoid the Governor's veto stamp. If certain limits can be added to the measure to keep its use reasonable, I believe the legislature can pass a satisfactory bill in the near future.
Table of Contents for This Series
- Schwarzenegger "Terminates" Employee Rights (Part 1)-Why?
- Schwarzenegger "Terminates" Employee Rights (Part 2)-Difficult Choices
- Schwarzenegger "Terminates" Employee Rights (Part 3)-Family Values?
0 Comments DISCLAIMER
Glass Ceiling is Still an Obstacle for Female Interviewees
Published by James Peters March 4th, 2007 in Discrimination, Medical LeavesSometimes it is easy to forget that discrimination against women, minorities and (of course) minority women still occurs in this country.
This might bring to mind examples where uneducated, unskilled women are denied employment and/or harassed by uneducated men who think of them as sex objects, such as in the movie North Country.
However, as discussed on Susan Cartier Liebel's blog, this subject comes up in all areas of employment, including lawyers. Susan discusses the recent Wall Street Journal blog post: "When You Land The Job Interview, Should The Ring Come Off?", which discusses whether lawyers should ditch their wedding ring for job interviews.
At first glance, some might think of this as paranoia, but an anonymous legal recruiter actually explains how the partners at law firms specifically tell him they prefer male over female recruits because they think these women will eventually get pregnant and either take time off or leave to start a family.
Sometimes employers are ignorant of the law and actually come right out and ask applicants about their family life for this very purpose. They ask things such as whether they plan to have children, what their husband thinks of them working outside the home and other questions that are not only illegal, but often extremely offensive.
While I would take this as a "red flag" that this is someone you might not want to work for, here is an article about how to deal with such questions "tactfully".
In California, it is illegal to hire a man over a married (or unmarried) woman for any of these or similar reasons. Marital status discrimination is not hard to prove when an employer makes it a habit of doing this. All you have to do is look at the list of who is hired and who is not when new employees are hired.
2 Comments DISCLAIMER
Q&A: Termination for Getting Pregnant is Illegal
Published by James Peters January 3rd, 2007 in Discrimination, Q&A, Wrongful TerminationQ: Last week I found out I was pregnant and my husband and I were overjoyed. The next day, I went into work and told my boss. He said that he does not allow pregnant women to work there because they disrupt scheduling when they take time off to have the baby. He terminated me and said I could re-apply for my position after I have the baby. Help!
--Pregnant and Unemployed (CA)
A: As you probably know, it is illegal under both federal and California law for an employer to terminate an employee because she becomes pregnant.
Pregnancy Discrimination Claims
Pregnancy discrimination is actually a form of gender discrimination. The rationale is that only women can become pregnant, so discriminating against a woman for being pregnant is essentially discriminating against her for being a woman.
Medical Leave Claims
Your situation also constitutes discrimination under the California Family Rights Act and other medical leave laws. If you are terminated because your employer anticipates you will be taking time off that is protected by the law, it is basically the same as if you were terminated for taking that leave after the fact.
Pregnancy Discrimination Claims More Successful
A recent survey showed that pregnancy discrimination cases seem to have a higher success rate than other employment discrimination claims. I believe this is the result of a few related factors.
First, an employee can point to a specific date when their employer found out they were pregnant and if the employer terminates or otherwise discriminates against the employee a short time later, it is clear that pregnancy was the reason.
Second, it just "makes sense" that an employer would tend to discriminate against pregnant employees. In California an employee can take up to four months of protected leave for the birth of a child. The employer essentially gets a few months notice that an employee will definitely be taking such a leave in the near future. It is only human for a manager to decide that things might go more smoothly if the pregnant employee was replaced.
This, of course, does not make it right.
Damages in These Cases are Sobering for Employers
When the inconvenience of employing a pregnant woman is compared to the potential damages a company might be forced to pay her later if she successfully sues them, it should be all to clear to them that not terminating her is much cheaper than terminating her.
This is especially true for employers in California, where they can be forced to pay an employee her lost wages, attorney's fees, and virtually unlimited emotional distress and punitive damages.
5 Comments DISCLAIMER
