tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-311303892024-03-08T12:13:25.634-08:00WorkLife Law BlogWorkLife Law aims to end Family Responsibilities Discrimination, which is employment discrimination against workers who have family caregiving obligations. It includes discrimination against parents of young children, pregnant women, and workers who have aging or sick parents, spouses, or partners.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-49221800868947370342010-11-01T14:47:00.000-07:002010-11-01T14:59:53.933-07:00Parents Need Not Apply<p class="MsoNormal">Remember the days when employment ads were classified as “help wanted-female” and “help wanted-male”?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Seems so quaint now, doesn’t it?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">What doesn’t seem quaint is the current-day version:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>“help wanted-no childcare concerns.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">That’s for real.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><a href="http://silverspringdreamdinners.blogspot.com/">Silver Spring Dream Dinners</a> placed an ad for part-time help that specifies the applicant must have own transportation, be able to work 10-20 hours per week (including evenings and weekends), be able to lift 50 pounds, and have “no school or childcare concerns.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Huh?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Does that say mothers of young children need not apply?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It sure sounds it. Dream Dinners might as well have said “the only people who can work here are those who don’t have young children.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>After all, no parent could state with certainty that he or she has no childcare concerns.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Kids get sick, blizzards happen, holidays crop up.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What makes this more surprising is that the ad is for an organization that makes its money catering to busy parents who work outside and inside the home, and the ad was placed on a mailing list, <a href="http://www.dcurbanmom.com/">DC Urban Moms (and Dads)</a>, that is directed at parents of young children.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>What would the clientele say if they knew that the company discriminates against parents?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dream Dinners might protest that it doesn’t mean to discriminate, that it just wants dependable workers who aren’t going to be pulled away by childcare emergencies.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Yup, and the companies that hired only men circa 1965 just wanted competent, dependable workers who had someone at home full-time to take care of the family work.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The problem with this type of thinking – aside from the fact that it is based on stereotypes and is unfair – is that it perpetuates work structures that are set up as if the norm is the unencumbered male.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Moreover, it is downright illegal. Dream Dinners would surely argue that at most it has discriminated against parents and that parents are not a protected category under state (Maryland) or federal law.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Unfortunately for Dream Dinners, it is located in Montgomery County, which expressly prohibits “family responsibilities” discrimination in employment.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The county ordinance defines “family responsibilities” as “the state of being financially or legally responsible for the support or care of a person . . . .”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>That certainly sounds like a person who might have childcare concerns, doesn’t it?<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Note to Dream Dinners:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>You might want to reconsider your ad – and create a more flexible work environment <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>– before your customers and the authorities find out.</p>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-37211537757316091662010-05-04T14:02:00.000-07:002010-05-04T14:05:41.873-07:00WorkLife Law receives grant from the Kellogg Foundation to study work-family conflict across classWorkLife Law is delighted to announce that we’ve received a generous new grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to expand our work on issues of work/family conflict across class. The grant will allow us to further document how work/family conflict affects low-wage workers and working-class families, building upon our recently released report, <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/ThreeFacesofWork-FamilyConflict.pdf">The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict: The Poor, the Professionals, and the Missing Middle</a> (jointly published by WorkLife Law and the Center for American Progress). With the support of the Kellogg Foundation, we will conduct new research and writing on how work-family conflict is a major driver of the poverty that many low-income families experience, to add work/life issues to conversations around poverty advocacy. We will also convene a working group of advocates and social scientists to cull the latest research and develop best practices for workplace flexibility in hourly and low-wage jobs. Our great thanks to the Kellogg Foundation for their support.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-50008545015985223282010-02-22T15:20:00.000-08:002010-02-22T15:31:54.289-08:00Family Responsibilities Discrimination Litigation Update 2010A new report by WorkLife Law provides a detailed picture of the current state of FRD litigation, including a 400% increase in the number of cases filed and an average verdict of more than $500,000. The report also describes common fact patterns that lead to FRD claims, shows the number of FRD cases filed in each state, and provides numerous case examples. The report can be downloaded <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/FRDupdate.pdf"></a><a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/FRDupdate.pdf">here</a>.<br /><br />Excerpt from the press release:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Costs of Caregiver Discrimination Increasing for Employers</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">New Report Says Family Responsibilities Discrimination Cases on the Rise, Cost More</span><br /><br />Treating employees less favorably because they have family caregiving obligations can land employers in court and result in significant liability, a new report by the Center for WorkLife Law concludes.<br /><br />Litigation aimed at bias against U.S. workers who care for children or aging parents has increased 400% in the past decade and the average verdict now tops $500,000, WorkLife Law says. Cases have been brought in every state and every industry, and against large and small employers. Employees prevail in about half of the cases – significantly more frequently than in other types of employment cases.<br /><br />Employer actions that have resulted in verdicts include:<br /><br />· Selecting an employee for layoff because she was pregnant;<br />· Denying a promotion to a female employee because she was the mother of young children;<br />· Firing a male employee who was on approved leave to care for a foster child;<br />· Instituting production quotas that could not be met by a male employee on intermittent leave to care for his seriously ill parents, and then firing him for not meeting the quotas.<br /><br /> “Laws are broken when supervisors make assumptions about the value of employees based on their family caregiving responsibilities and then take negative personnel actions, regardless of the employees’ actual performance,” said the report’s author, Cynthia Thomas Calvert, Deputy Director of WorkLife Law.<br /><br />“Fortunately, employers can protect themselves against these lawsuits,” Calvert continued. “A good prevention program includes training supervisors so they can recognize the assumptions and be prepared to react in a more appropriate way.”<br /><br />The report, Family Responsibilities Discrimination: Litigation Update 2010, is based on an analysis of over 2100 cases. Most cases reviewed were related to pregnancy and maternity leave (67%). Other cases related to elder care (9.6%), care for sick children (7%), care for ill spouses (4%), time off for newborn care by fathers or adoptive parents (3%), and care for a family member who has a disability (2.4%). Most cases (88%) were filed by women; 12% were filed by men. The report is available on WorkLife Law’s website, www.worklifelaw.org.<br /><br />Family responsibilities discrimination is discrimination against employees who have family caregiving obligations, such as pregnant women, mothers and fathers of young children, and workers with sick or aging parents. Some state and local laws prohibit this kind of discrimination outright. Employees also use a variety of state and federal anti-discrimination and family leave laws to sue their employers. Many of the cases studied for the report involved the use of the federal sex discrimination law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.<br /><br />In 2007, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued enforcement guidance about caregiver discrimination that detailed how Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on family responsibilities.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-22592027730459472762010-01-25T16:06:00.000-08:002010-01-25T16:15:00.893-08:00New report from WorkLife Law and CAP on work-family conflicts across class<p class="MsoNormal">Today the Center for WorkLife Law (WLL), in conjunction with the Center for American Progress (CAP), released a groundbreaking report on work-family conflicts across class.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/ThreeFacesofWork-FamilyConflict.pdf">The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict: The Poor, the Professionals, and the Missing Middle</a> is the first of its kind report to comprehensively document how work-family conflict affects poor and working class people, instead of focusing exclusively on professional women “opting out” of the paid workforce.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>It provides concrete demographic data on income changes over time from CAP Senior Economist and report co-author Heather Boushey.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>In addition, the report provides extensive research by WLL Director and report co-author Joan Williams on how work-family conflict affects families differently based on where they—and the type of jobs they have access to—fall on the income spectrum.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">After painting a picture of working families in the United States today, the report sets out a policy agenda to tackle work-family conflict that is universal in its appeal, not only to working families of all classes, but that can work for employers while providing needed supports to their employees, too.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Given President Obama’s commitment to addressing work-family conflict—including his <a href="http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/the-state-of-the-union-for-consumers/">plans to address new child care policy initiatives in his state of the union address</a>—the report aims to identify a policy agenda that can help reduce work-family conflicts for employees in ways that are workable and help employers’ bottom lines.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Click here to read the full report:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/ThreeFacesofWork-FamilyConflict.pdf">The Three Faces of Work-Family Conflict: The Poor, the Professionals, and the Missing Middle</a>.</p>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-90920191914546581842009-04-22T10:46:00.001-07:002009-04-22T11:09:54.448-07:00EEOC Issues Best Practices for Employers to Prevent FRDThe EEOC today issued a document suggesting ways for employers to avoid FRD claims (<a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiver-best-practices.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities</span></a>, Apr. 22, 2009). <br /><br />The document was issued at a Commission meeting that featured statements by Dianna Johnston, EEOC OLC Assistant Legal Counsel, Dr. Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for American Progress, Karen Minatelli, Director of Work and Family Programs, National Partnership for Women and Families, Jeffrey Norris, President, Equal Employment Advisory Council, and Cynthia Calvert, Deputy Director, WorkLife Law. The panelists, whose <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/4-22-09/index.html">statements are available online</a>, praised the best practices document and noted that the need for the best practices guidance was particularly strong in light of the current recession.<br /><br />The best practices document supplements the EEOC's 2007 <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html">Caregiver Discrimination Guidance</a> and provides suggestions for actions employers can take to reduce discrimination against employees who have family caregiving responsibilities. The suggested best practices include:<br /><ul><li>Training managers about laws that protect caregivers;</li><li>Developing and enforcing a policy that states the employer will not discriminate against employees based on their caregiving obligations;</li><li>Ensuring managers copmly with the company's work/life policies;</li><li>Responding effectively to complaints of caregiver discrimination;</li><li>Protecting employees who complain of discrimination from retaliation;</li><li>Reviewing existing personnel policies to ensure they do not disadvantage caregivers;</li><li>Making overtime as family-friendly as possible;</li><li>Reassigning job duties that employees are unable to perform because of pregnancy or other caregiving responsibilities;</li><li>Providing reasonable personal or sick leave to allow caregiving;</li><li>Developing the potential of all employees, including caregivers; and</li><li>Providing support and resources to assist employees with caregiving.</li></ul>The new document includes the actions <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/PreventFRD.html">WorkLife Law</a> has suggested that employers take to prevent FRD claims. To assist employers, WorkLife Law has created a <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/EmployerModelPolicy.html">model policy</a> that states that the employer will not discriminate against family caregivers, and has <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/ForEmployers.html">customizable trainings</a> for managers, supervisors, HR professionals, and legal counsel. In addition, WorkLife Law provides periodic employer alerts on topics related to family responsibilities discrimination, and is available to answer employer questions.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-77105886875535900092008-12-09T17:55:00.000-08:002008-12-09T18:03:53.122-08:00WLL and Sloan Work and Family Research Network at Boston College Release New Research on State Legislation to Protect Family CaregiversWorkLife Law and the Sloan Work and Family Research Network at Boston College have released a new research brief for state policy makers, entitled <em><a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/policybrieffrd.pdf">Addressing Family Responsibilities Discrimination</a></em>. The brief describes state policy efforts to address family responsibilities discrimination (FRD)—employment discrimination based on an employee’s family caregiving responsibilities—including statistics on FRD, why FRD is a policy matter, and how FRD negatively impacts both employees and their employers.<br /><br />The brief also details recently proposed state legislation on FRD—the first research of its kind to do so—including information on legislative proposals in eight states (CA, FL, IA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, MT) and New York City that relate to FRD.<br /><br />Both the <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/policybrieffrd.pdf">research brief </a>and a <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/prfrdbrief.pdf">press release </a>about it are available on the WorkLife Law <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/">website</a>.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-9408299951735025102008-09-26T14:17:00.000-07:002008-09-26T14:18:39.681-07:00FRD Quiz on HR HeroLooking for a way to test your knowledge of FRD? Checkout HR Hero’s FRD Quiz at http://www.hrhero.com/hriq/index.cgi?FRD. It is a quick five-question test that covers many of the typical workplace circumstances that can give rise to an FRD claim. The quiz also highlights not only employers’ legal obligations to their employees with caregiving responsibilities but employers’ rights as well. The quiz is well worth the eight to ten minutes it takes to complete. <br /><br />For more information about FRD generally and resources for employers and their attorneys visit the Center for WorkLife Law’s website at www.worklifelaw.org.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-42737607947209456432007-11-27T11:46:00.000-08:002007-12-12T09:57:39.456-08:00What Are Management Attorneys Saying About FRD?The Center for WorkLife Law (WLL) works with any and all groups interested in FRD – employees, employers, journalists, legislators, and researchers. For employers, WLL has developed a number of resources, including prevention checklists, key case lists, monthly e-mail alters, and training programs, for employers and their attorneys. A rapidly growing number of management-side attorneys and human resources consultants have begun advising employers that a focus on prevention is critical. <br /><br />In addition to a number of teleconferences sponsored by such groups as Lorman, West LegalEd, ALI-ABA and the Labor & Employment Section of the ABA featuring management employment attorneys’ articles are starting to stream in. One such article, <a href="http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?section=Wisconsin_Lawyer&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&contentid=68221">Family Responsibilities Discrimination: Making Room at Work for Family Demands</a>, recently came across my e-mail. The author, Daniel J. Finerty, an attorney at Krukowski & Costello S.C., in Milwaukee, correctly points out the FRD is here to stay. Employees’ family responsibilities have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Many families are dual income households with both men and women taking responsibilities for child and/or elder care. Accordingly, employers’ views about family and work need to evolve with the times or they will face significant liability for FRD claims. Finerty lays out a number of excellent suggestions for preventing FRD claims that are based on many of the things employers already do to prevent other types of employment claims such as training, modifying existing employment policies and basing decisions on objective criteria. <br /><br />I am interested in reading more FRD articles written by employers or management employment attorneys and in hearing what employers are doing to prevent FRD in their workplaces. If you are aware of any articles or prevention strategies, please pass them on. <br /><br />Consuela Pinto<br />Senior Counsel<br />Center for WorkLife LawWorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-75775693514249983272007-10-30T15:38:00.000-07:002007-10-30T15:39:23.256-07:00Joan's travelsI have been traveling relentlessly; six speeches in the twelve days. Here's one story I heard:<br /><br />A Gen-X lawyer told me he was working with a new client, who expressed impatience with younger workers who wanted to telecommute. The lawyer held his peace, but months later, when he got to know the client better, he confessed that, the day the client made that comment, he was telecommuting -- at home with a sick child. "Did that affect the advice I gave you?," he asked. The client acknowledged it hadn't; by that time, his attitudes had changed a lot.<br /><br />Young men are changing the workplace, little by little.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-49920296599925075042007-10-16T14:55:00.000-07:002007-10-16T15:02:12.864-07:00Veto of Family Caregiver Protection Bill<p class="MsoNormal">Over the weekend, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 836 (Kuehl), a state bill that would have prohibited employment discrimination based on a worker’s “familial status,” including some family caregiving responsibilities.<span style=""> </span><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">SB 836 was an anti-discrimination measure and not a preference statute. <span style=""> </span>It did not grant family caregivers any additional entitlements. Rather, the bill was designed to clarify and fill in gaps in the law, so that California workers could not be singled out and treated worse at work based on their family caregiving responsibilities.<span style=""> </span>Consider the case of California firefighter, Derek Tisinger, a single father, was passed over for a promotion for using his employer’s shift trading policy to trade shifts to allow him to care for his three sons.<span style=""> </span>Other workers who traded shifts for non-family reasons were not penalized.<span style=""> </span>When Tisinger sued, the court held that, even though he was treated worse because of his family responsibilities, that treatment wasn’t illegal under state law.<span style=""> </span>(See <i style=""><span style="">Tisinger v. City of Bakersfield,</span></i><span style=""> 2002 WL 275525 (Cal. Ct. App., 2002).)</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As WLL documented in its 2006 report, <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/FRDreport.pdf">Litigating the Maternal Wall</a>, <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/pubs/FRDreport.pdf"></a> some employees are already suing their employers—and winning—for family responsibilities discrimination under a wide array of legal theories, often taking their employers by surprise.<span style=""> </span><span style="">SB 836 would have provided employers with some much needed guidance and, if nothing else, a “heads up” about the potential liability that may exist in their workplaces.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""><br /></span><o:p></o:p></p>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-17994894552296881722007-10-15T13:01:00.000-07:002007-10-15T13:18:59.768-07:00New FRD Case filedFrom time to time, we come across noteworthy new FRD cases we like to pass along. Here's one that raises several interesting issues (and probably some eyebrows, too):<br /> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Children’s Hospital in Boston, a major teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, apparently does not want plastic surgeons who are mothers. It tried to make the first and only female plastic surgeon ever hired by the hospital quit, and when she wouldn’t, she was fired, according to a discrimination charge filed last week.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">Highlights: The female plastic surgeon is a mother who worked part-time.<span style=""> </span>The new Chief of Plastic Surgery informed her that he was eliminating “all” part-time surgeons to create a “world class” surgery department, although the mother was the only part-time plastic surgeon.<span style=""> </span>The Chief’s reference to “all” referred to the mother and to two men with full-time private practices who used Children’s facilities on a part-time basis but who were not Children’s employees as the mother was.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">The Chief offered the two male plastic surgeons full-time positions with Children’s, enticing them with financial incentives. The plastic surgeon/mother, on the other hand, says she was rebuffed when she offered to become a full-time surgeon in order to retain her position.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">In addition, she says, the hospital harassed her in an attempt to force her from the plastic surgery department and to shut down her practice by taking away her patients, removing her voicemail and directory information so she couldn’t be contacted, interfering with her billing for office visits, and making disparaging comments about her.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><span style=""></span>The Chief of Plastic Surgery defines a “full-time” surgeon as one who puts in face time of least sixty hours per week.<span style=""> </span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->His own wife is a doctor who stays home full-time with their children, WLL has learned. <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">The plastic surgeon/mother was replaced by a less qualified male who is now operating part-time because he has a research position on the side -- which was one of the proposals the plastic surgeon/mother had made to the department for herself that was rejected.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">The allegations get worse: when the plastic surgeon/mother did not resign, the hospital and the department threatened to retaliate against her for stating that she was being treated unfairly because of her gender and status as a mother. They then carried out these threats by summarily terminating her from her job, taking away her scheduled operating and clinic time, and withholding revenues that she had already earned.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <br />We'll be keeping a close eye on this one.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-79453298659066005592007-07-28T10:08:00.000-07:002007-07-28T10:11:01.131-07:00Article about FRD and WorkLife Law in NY TimesEyal Press has written a terrific piece about Family Responsibilities Discrimination and <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org">WorkLife Law</a> that will appear in tomorrow's Sunday magazine. But you can get a sneak peek <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/magazine/29discrimination-t.html?ei=5124&en=d42fb0331995c810&ex=1343275200&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1185642002-Orbt1UbB9zIx5e8zV/B+pQ">here</a>.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-81473166523616067182007-07-28T10:05:00.001-07:002007-07-28T10:08:42.414-07:00Our New Web SiteWorkLife Law now has a<a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org"> new website</a> with improved navigation and lots of new content. Employers, employees, attorneys, and unions each have their own areas with information focused just on them.<br /><br />Please let us know what you think of the site. If you have ideas for additional information or features that you'd like to see, please let us know that, too. Comments can be posted here or sent to us at Web at worklifelaw dot org.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-46177680908053663692007-07-18T13:28:00.000-07:002007-07-18T13:45:24.770-07:00ABA Teleconference on FRDThe ABA held a teleconference today about Family Responsibilities Discrimination (if you missed the program and want to order a recording, you can click here: <a href="http://www.abanet.org/cle/programs/t07ewi1.html">EEO WorkLife Initiatives: Family Responsibilities Discrimination</a>). The program covered why FRD is such a hot issue in employment law right now, how the claims arise and how they are litigated, the recent EEOC enforcement guidance, statutes and causes of action commonly used by FRD plaintiffs, key cases, compliance and prevention, and litigation tips. <br /><br />Many thanks to Carolyn Lerner of Heller, Huron, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon & Salzman for moderating, to Margaret Murray of the Law Offices of Margaret E. Murray in San Francisco for providing the management perspective, and Cynthia Calvert of the Center for WorkLife Law for discussing the plaintiff's perspective.<br /><br />Many thanks, too, to the many participants in the audience. For the benefit of the audience, here are citations to some of the cases mentioned during the teleconference:<br /> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Back v. Hastings on Hudson</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">365 F.3d 107 </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">(2d Cir. 2004) (stereotyping is gender discrimination).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Knussman v. Maryland</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, 16 F. Supp. 2d 601 (D. Md. 1998), <i style="">motion for new trial granted in part, denied in part by</i>, 65 F. Supp. 2d 353 (D. Md. 1999); <i>award vacated & remanded</i>, 272 F.3d 655 (4<sup>th</sup> Cir. 2001).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Schultz v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., </span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">No. 01 C 0702 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (FMLA, $11.65 million verdict).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Trezza v. Hartford, Inc</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20206, 78 Fair Empl. Prac. 1826 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">O’Neal v. Tyson Foods, Inc</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">., </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30305<b><i> </i></b></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">(N.D. Ala. 2004) (employer wins PDA/ADA case).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Detels v. Farmers Insurance Exchange</span></i><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11942<b><i> </i></b></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">(Ct. App. Cal. 4<sup>th</sup> 2002) (employer wins CFRA case).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Additional information about FRD can be found at WorkLife Law's <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org">web site.</a> <br /><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-12743248523970625312007-06-06T19:27:00.000-07:002007-06-06T19:47:18.947-07:00New FRD Verdict: $2.1 MillionTeresa Lehman was an assistant store manager for Kohl's. Despite having the right qualifications and experience, she was passed over for promotion and transferred to poorly performing stores. The reason? She became pregnant. Her employer made it plain that women in their childbearing years were not promotable -- according to an <a href="http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1180168222169660.xml&coll=2">article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer,</a> the women who were promoted either were child-free or promised not to have more children, and Lehman's boss asked her questions about whether she was going to get pregnant again, whether she had had her tubes tied, and whether she was breastfeeding. The jury was clearly disturbed by the blatant discrimination and awarded Lehman $2.1 million, plus attorney's fees.<br /><br />Coming on the heels of the new <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html">EEOC enforcement guidance on caregiver discrimination</a>, this case illustrates the maternal wall many women face in the workplace. It also illustrates how costly family responsibilities discrimination can be for employers.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-35099387989076415182007-05-23T12:08:00.000-07:002007-05-23T12:25:39.762-07:00EEOC Issues Important Enforcement Guidance on Caregiver DiscriminationThe EEOC today issued <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html">Enforcement Guidance about caregiver discrimination</a>. The guidance provides an excellent overview of disparate treatment and stereotype discrimination cases, with plenty of illustrative examples throughout. Employers, employees, and employment law attorneys will benefit from reading it over.<br /><br />Here's the press release issued today by WorkLife Law:<br /><p class="MsoCaption"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;font-size:13;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >EEOC Gives Boost to Mothers and Other Family Caregivers</span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">SAN FRANCISCO, CA<span style=""> </span>–<span style=""> </span>Discrimination against mothers and other workers who have family caregiving responsibilities is rampant in many workplaces.<span style=""> </span>Employers who harass, pass over for promotion, and even terminate workers because they care for young children or sick parents have been sued with increasing frequency and have been paying increasing amounts in verdicts.<span style=""> </span>Today, the EEOC took an important step toward ending this discrimination by issuing enforcement guidance that will educate employers and employees about caregivers’ rights and responsibilities.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Guidance advises that discrimination can take the form of different treatment of men and women with young children, such as selecting fathers but not mothers for a training program.<span style=""> </span>It also advises that discrimination can take the form of stereotyping, such as giving less desirable assignments to mothers on the assumption that they are not as committed to their jobs.<span style=""> </span>Examples of common scenarios for discrimination are provided throughout.<span style=""> </span>The Guidance can be viewed on the EEOC’s website at <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html">www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html</a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Center for WorkLife Law, which has spearheaded the study of caregiver discrimination for almost ten years, has actively sought guidance from the EEOC on discrimination against family caregivers.<span style=""> </span>Joan Williams, the founding director of WorkLife Law and Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Hastings College of the Law, testified at an EEOC Commissioners Meeting on April 11, 2007 about the causes of the discrimination and the various ways caregivers are discriminated against in the workplace.<span style=""> </span>These include:<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;">firing pregnant employees because they will take maternity leave;</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;">giving promotions to women without children or fathers rather than to more qualified mothers;</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;">giving parents work schedules that they cannot meet for childcare reasons while giving nonparents flexible schedules; </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;">harassing and penalizing workers who take time off to care for their aging parents or sick spouses or partners; and</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 66pt 0.0001pt 0.5in;">fabricating work infractions or performance deficiencies to justify dismissal of employees with family responsibilities.<o:p></o:p></p><span style=""></span> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> WorkLife Law has compiled a database of over 1,000 cases involving discrimination against family caregivers, also called family responsibilities discrimination.<span style=""> </span>Last year, it issued a report showing a 400% increase in the number of cases filed by caregivers against their employers over the prior decade, and it has created a list of case outcomes that includes 80 verdicts and settlements over $100,000.<span style=""> </span>The largest verdict for a single employee was $11.65 million, given to a man who was terminated after he took time off to care for his aging parents. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">While no federal law expressly prohibits family responsibilities discrimination, it is prohibited by statute in Alaska and the District of Columbia and for federal employees and contractors by Executive Order.<span style=""> </span>Some cities and counties also have laws making family responsibilities discrimination illegal.<span style=""> </span>State legislatures in California and New York are currently considering bills that would also outlaw discrimination against family caregivers.<span style=""> </span>At present, employees sue under existing statutes, such as the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the sex discrimination prohibitions contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.<span style=""> </span>The lack of a single statute addressing the issue has made it difficult for employers to understand and prevent the discrimination in their workplaces.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Discrimination against employees with caregiving responsibilities is one of the most blatant forms of discrimination today,” said Williams.<span style=""> </span>“It is clear from our work that employers and employees need exactly the type of guidance that the EEOC has offered today.<span style=""> </span>The Guidance is a strong step toward eliminating this type of discrimination.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">WorkLife Law has created resources for employers to help them stop caregiver discrimination, including a fact sheet, a model policy, trainings for supervisors, and legal briefings for attorneys who represent companies.<span style=""> </span>It also has resources for employees who think they may be facing discrimination because of their family responsibilities, including educational materials, a hotline, and a network of attorneys who represent employees.<span style=""> </span>WorkLife Law has also published the only treatise on this subject, <i>WorkLife Law’s Guide to Family Responsibilities Discrimination</i> (WLL Press 2006), and provides information to legislators, judges, journalists, academics, and others.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Center for WorkLife Law is <span style="color:black;">based at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and is directed by Joan C. Williams, Distinguished Professor of Law. It was founded as the Program on Gender, Work & Family at American University Washington College of Law in 1998 and is supported by research and program development grants, university funding, and private donations.<span style=""> </span>More information is available at its website, <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/">www.worklifelaw.org</a>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="color:black;">#<span style=""> </span>#<span style=""> </span>#<o:p></o:p></span></p>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-39295929794022482582007-05-11T12:17:00.001-07:002007-05-11T12:48:44.501-07:00Mother's Day ReflectionsMother's Day has become a prime time for reflecting on the state of working mothers. Here are links to two items that are not to be missed:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2788415n">CBS Evening News Eye to Eye: Interview with Pam Stone</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/05/11/a_third_gender_in_the_workplace/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Ellen+Goodman+columns">Ellen Goodman's May 11th Boston Globe column, "A third gender in the workplace"</a>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-27438857256474376692007-05-08T08:48:00.000-07:002007-05-11T12:16:25.839-07:00Verdicts in FRD CasesJoan Williams and Cynthia Calvert gave a presentation at an <a href="http://www.ali-aba.org/">ALI-ABA</a> conference last week in Boston, and a question came up about how many sizable verdicts have been awarded in Family Responsibilities Discrimination cases. Here are the stats, which come from our ever-growing database of FRD cases (now over 1,000 cases):<br /><br />80 verdicts/settlements at or over $100,000<br />10 verdicts/settlements at or over $1,000,000<br />largest multiple-plaintiff award (settlement): $49 million<br />largest single-plaintiff award (verdict): $11.65 million<br /><br />Of course, not every FRD case concludes with stratospheric damages. It is important for companies and attorneys to be aware of the potential for large recoveries, however, so they can correctly value FRD cases they may be facing.<br /><br />WorkLife Law is compiling a list of verdicts and settlements that will be available on its <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org">website </a>in the near future.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-73221773240197739762007-04-30T13:23:00.000-07:002007-04-30T14:18:58.456-07:00New "Flex Pack" Available from the Labor Project for Working FamiliesThe <a href="http://www.working-families.org">Labor Project for Working Families</a> has launched a new Flex Pack—a toolkit designed to help unions with organizing, bargaining, and working on legislation around issues of workplace flexibility. The Flex Pack includes facts on the importance of flexibility to workers, FAQs, tips for unions, legislative options, and examples of contract language. It also explains how to differentiate between real flexibility that works and “fake flextime” policies that are mere window dressing. You can download or order hard copies of the Flex Pack from the <a href="http://www.working-families.org/organize/flexpack.html">Labor Project for Working Families’ Flex Pack webpage</a>.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-61844746833758902142007-04-18T11:13:00.000-07:002007-04-18T12:10:27.621-07:00EEOC Commissioners Hold Meeting to Discuss FRDThe EEOC Commissioners held a meeting yesterday to discuss work/life balance and job bias. They invited five experts to testify: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">WorkLife</span> Law's Joan Williams; Zachary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Fasman</span> of Paul, Hastings; Heather <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Boushey</span>, Center for Economic and Policy Research; Jennifer Tucker, Center for Women Policy Studies; and Elizabeth <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Grossman</span>, EEOC Regional Attorney. <br /><br />The experts' remarks are available <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/meetings/4-17-07/index.html">online</a> and are well worth reading. A few highlights follow, but with apologies to the experts because this brief summary does not do justice to their work:<br /><br />Heather <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Boushey</span> framed the discussion by providing demographic information that shows that workers with family care responsibilities are not, as the common wisdom would have it, "exceptional workers" -- rather, they are the norm. <br /><br />Jennifer Tucker testified that her Center has studied the combined impact of race and gender in the workplace (most studies have looked at only one or the other). Their research shows that women of color who are also caregivers are treated differently from white women when asking for time off for family-related reasons. Thus, she observed, situations that start out being work/life situations can quickly become racial disparate treatment situations.<br /><br />Elizabeth <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Grossman</span> provided compelling examples of Title VII and ADA Association clause lawsuits brought by the EEOC on behalf of caregivers in the New York district, and discussed pending caregiver litigation. She said that the EEOC is starting to see more cases being brought by men, including cases in which men are not getting family-related leave and benefits routinely given to women. They are not seeing many cases involving elder care (author's note: those tend to be brought under the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">FMLA</span>, over which the EEOC does not have jurisdiction). She also discussed the need for more training about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">FRD</span> for EEOC investigators and attorneys.<br /><br />Zachary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Fasman</span> discussed legal issues surrounding <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">FRD</span>. He noted that Congress has not expressly outlawed discrimination against employees who have family responsibilities (author's note: not yet, at least), but acknowledged that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">FRD</span> is sex discrimination under Title VII where employees are treated based on sex stereotypes or treated disparately based on gender. He also stated that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">FRD</span> is not a unified concept, but an amalgam of different legal theories, which makes it a difficult concept. He concluded by saying that employers would do well to prohibit <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">FRD</span> in their workplaces and provide training for their managers on how to prevent it.<br /><br />Joan Williams described how the maternal wall (discrimination against women because they are or may one day become mothers) affects workers in every industry and at every level from hourly workers through executives. She set out the many ways maternal wall bias is manifested in the workplace, providing compelling evidence from actual cases, and called on the EEOC to issue policy guidance to educate employers about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">FRD</span>. <br /><br />In response to the Commissioners' questions, Professor Williams and Mr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Fasman</span> debated the current state of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">FRD</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">caselaw</span> under Title VII, and ultimately agreed that "sex plus" is an outdated concept that isn't necessary or helpful as a theory for bringing <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">FRD</span> cases. The two also agreed that "loose lips" cases -- cases in which supervisors make blatantly discriminatory remarks such as "I'm terminating you so you can stay home with your baby" and "I don't see how you can be a good worker and a good mother" -- will likely become less prevalent in the future and the courts will see more pretext-type cases. <br /><br />Watch the <a href="http://www.eeoc.gov">EEOC website </a>for a transcript of the meeting and for notices of future meetings on this important topic.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-1168015609569372832007-01-05T08:11:00.000-08:002007-03-01T10:48:28.363-08:00WalMart Even More Family-UNfriendlyWhen I saw the headlines about WalMart moving to flexible scheduling, I was elated to think that it might have finally decided to become a leader in the work/life arena -- but only until I read the story and saw that what WalMart is actually doing is undermining any sort of work/life balance for its employees. Here's a bit of the story, from the Wall Street Journal:<br /><br /><em>[U]sing a new computerized scheduling system, [WalMart] will start moving many of its 1.3 million workers from predictable shifts to a system based on the number of customers in stores at any given time. The move promises greater productivity and customer satisfaction for the huge retailer but could be a major headache for employees.</em><br /><br />It is hard to imagine a schedule that will be harder on employees, particularly employees with family caregiving responsibilities. How are parents supposed to arrange daycare? They'll never know sufficiently far in advance if they'll be working or not. How are employees with sick or aging parents supposed to schedule doctor's appointments for their parents? How is anyone, caregiver or not, supposed to have a life? Moreover, the system allows employees to be sent home if there aren't enough shoppers in the store to justify their presence -- what is this fluctuating number of work hours going to do to the paychecks of employees who rely on their income from WalMart jobs to pay their rent?<br /><br />Unfortunately, WalMart is apparently not the only retailer to have this type of policy. But as the largest employer, and with its history of employee abuses, it cannot hide behind a "but everyone else does it" justification. I understand that a retailer needs to have employees working during peak shopping periods, but I don't understand why a store can't predict those peak periods and give employees advance schedules that meet those predictions. This new system is trying to shift the burdens of inaccurately predicting shopper patterns from management's shoulders to the employees' shoulders.<br /><br />If I were an attorney advising employees, I'd look at whether it might be possible for employees to challenge these schedules as having a disparate impact on women, given that women still do most of the caregiving in this country, or as violating the D.C. or Alaska statutes that prohibit discrimination based on family responsibilities/parental status. <br /><br />If I were an attorney advising WalMart, I'd look not only at potential lawsuits, but also at the huge costs that are surely to come as a result of high attrition. In addition to all the administrative costs and the unemployment benefits that will have to be paid when employees terminate, WalMart is going to have a harder time recruiting and will have to train new employees and suffer reductions in productivity as all these new people get up to speed. And can you imagine what the morale is going to be like in these stores? The level of morale and the level of customer service are closely tied, which could well lead to fewer people wanting to shop at WalMart... yeah, this was a real bright idea.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: right;">-- Cynthia<br /></div>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-1164080932338620042006-11-20T19:44:00.000-08:002007-03-01T04:04:32.866-08:00New Family Responsibilities Discrimination Treatise<p class="MsoNormal">It’s here!<span style=""> </span>We are pleased to announce that <span style="font-style: italic;">WorkLife Law’s Guide to Family Responsibilities Discrimination</span> has finally been published!</p><p class="MsoNormal">Here's the press release:</p><p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal">Legal Guide to Family Responsibilities Discrimination is Published</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Treatise is First of its Kind in Growing Area of Employment Law</span></span><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">SAN FRANCISCO, CA<span style=""> </span>–<span style=""> </span>A woman’s position is eliminated while she is on maternity leave.<span style=""> </span>A father who takes time off to be with his kids is taken off important assignments.<span style=""> </span>A mother isn’t considered for promotion because her supervisor thinks she won’t want to work any additional hours now that she has little ones at home.<span style=""> </span>A man is fired when he asks for leave to care for his dying father.<span style="font-size:100%;"> <o:p></o:p><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">All of these employees are facing Family Responsibilities Discrimination, a rapidly growing area of employment law.<span style=""> </span>FRD can affect pregnant women, mothers and fathers of young children, and workers who take time off to care for their aging parents.<span style=""> </span>Attorneys who represent such employees now have a groundbreaking resource for information about discrimination against workers who care for family members.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><i>WorkLife Law’s Guide to Family Responsibilities Discrimination </i>is the first treatise of its kind.<span style=""> </span>Published by the Center for WorkLife Law, the 160-page <i>Guide</i> provides a thorough overview of the federal and state laws that can be used to protect workers who have family caregiving obligations.<span style=""> </span>It provides practice tips, an extensive compilation of case law, and a special section on research about bias against mothers.<span style=""> </span>The <i>Guide</i> is in loose-leaf format to allow easy updating in this rapidly expanding area of the law.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;">FRD typically arises when employers make personnel decisions based on outdated stereotypes or assumptions about employees with caregiving obligations, such as pregnant workers will have excessive absences and will quit their jobs, mothers of young children aren’t as competent, fathers who are actively involved in childrearing are not committed to their jobs, and workers who have to care for sick or aging parents won’t be as productive.<span style=""> </span>The caregivers could face termination, non-promotion, loss of bonus, hostile comments, poor job assignments, unwarranted criticisms, or unusual scrutiny.<span style=""> </span>Whether these actions are discrimination in the eyes of law will vary with each situation.<span style=""> </span>The aim of the<i> Guide</i> is to help attorneys who represent employees recognize the common fact patterns of FRD and use the best legal tools available.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;">The<i> Guide</i> was written by Joan C. Williams and Cynthia Thomas Calvert. Williams is a Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Hastings College of the Law and founding director of the Center for WorkLife Law.<span style=""> </span>She authored the award-winning book <i>Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It</i> (Oxford University Press, 2000).<span style=""> </span>Calvert, deputy director of WorkLife Law, is an employment attorney.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="color:black;">The Center for WorkLife Law is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization that works with employers, employees, attorneys, legislators, journalists, and researchers to identify and prevent FRD.<span style=""> </span>It was founded as the Program on Gender, Work & Family at American University Washington College of Law in 1998, and moved to </span>UC Hastings College of the Law<span style="color:black;"> in 2005.<span style=""> </span>WorkLife Law is supported by research and program development grants, university funding, and private donations.</span></span><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Ordering information for the<i> Guide</i>, and more information about FRD, can be found at WorkLife Law’s web site, <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/">www.worklifelaw.org</a>.</span></p><p style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"># # #</p><p class="MsoNormal">Athe WorkLife Law web site, you can get more information, read an excerpt, or order a copy.<o:p></o:p><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The Guide is a work in progress and will be updated frequently as new cases and research become available.<span style=""> </span>You can help us with our updating process – if you are involved with an FRD case, please jot us an email and let us know.</p>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-1162396305780003472006-11-01T07:28:00.000-08:002006-11-01T07:52:52.086-08:00The Secret is Out about Mothers and Business TravelThe conventional wisdom is that mothers of young children don't like to travel for business. Well-meaning employers often take mothers off assignments that involved travelling, thinking they are being sensitive to the mothers' needs. (There is a name for this: benevolent stereotyping.) In fact, though, employers who do this often are disadvantaging the mothers because the result of their actions is that mothers get the less challenging and lower profile assignments and in the long run that hurts their ability to advance.<br /><br />Memo to employers: The solution is to ask the mothers what they want. Don't make assumptions, and don't act on stereotypes. Some women truly don't want to travel. I recall a colleague who had to leave her six month old behind when she went on a business trip -- she went into the bathroom at the airport and threw up. But I also recall telling one of my subordinates that I wasn't taking her on a business trip because she was a new mom (yes, I was as biased as anyone until I started studying maternal wall bias and <a href="http://www.uchastings.edu/site_files/WLL/FRDreport.pdf">family responsibilities discrimination</a>), and she insisted on going, saying "You don't understand -- I <span style="font-style: italic;">want </span>to go. It will be the only decent night's sleep I can get for months!"<br /><br />And that is the secret, as revealed today in the New York Times ("<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/business/01travel.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin">Working Mothers Find Some Peace on the Road</a>" by Lisa Foderaro). Some mothers really do want to travel for business. It is often the only time they can relax and be themselves. The NYT story quotes mothers talking about using their travel time to read, soak in the tub, sleep, and just enjoy some quiet time. I can relate completely. It is extremely difficult to make all the arrangements for the kids and the household before I go, but once I'm on the road, it is heaven. And I return a much nicer person than when I left.<br /><br />So, employers, next time you're feeling guilty about asking a mother to travel, don't! The best thing to do is to ask both mothers <span style="font-style: italic;">and fathers</span> of young children if they want to travel, and to respect their wishes to the extent possible.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: right;">-- <span style="font-style: italic;">Cynthia</span></div>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-1161360543023945472006-10-20T08:42:00.001-07:002006-10-20T09:09:03.096-07:00New Report: "Opt Out" or Pushed Out?Many women doubt there is an "opt out revolution", and a new report by the Center for WorkLife Law proves their doubt is well-founded. The report, <a href="http://www.pardc.org/Publications/Opt%20Out%20or%20Pushed%20Out%20Report.pdf">"Opt Out" or Pushed Out?: How the Press Covers Work/Family Conflict</a>" shows that press reports of women choosing to stay home have made sweeping generalizations about female workers from very limited examples of women who are not representative of female workers as a whole. Equally importantly, the report presents hard evidence that women who leave the workforce for childcare reasons are more often pushed out of their jobs by inflexible schedules and inflexible workplaces.<br /><br />The report is by Joan Williams, Jessica Manvell and Stephanie Bornstein of the <a href="http://www.worklifelaw.org/">Center for WorkLife Law</a>.WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31130389.post-1161099746225217932006-10-17T08:40:00.000-07:002006-10-17T08:42:26.246-07:00The Next Wave of FRD<p class="MsoNormal">As an advocate for people with developmental disabilities, I am always comforted by new information that may increase the quality of life for those with disabilities.<span style=""> </span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->This can include health research or support services that encourage inclusion and increase a person’s ability to live as independently as possible. <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->For instance, in the 1920’s, a person with Down’s Syndrome had a life expectancy of 9 years, whereas in the 1900’s, due to the advancement of medicine and the ability to diagnose at an earlier age, a person with Down’s Syndrome can now expect to live into his/her 60’s. <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">For parents, educators and other professionals, this is good news.<span style=""> </span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Alas, this is where some of the good news sputters and stops and this is where the Center for WLL’s recent research and coinage of “Family Responsibilities Discrimination” emerges. <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A recent study shows that children with disabilities are more likely to live with a single mother than other children (Philip Cohen and Miruna Petrescu-Prahova, <a href="http://www.unc.edu/%7Epnc/JMF06.pdf">"Gendered Living Arrangements Among Children with Disabilities</a>." <i>Journal of Marriage and Family</i><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> 68:630-638, August, 2006). The study further shows that single mothers care for 17 percent of children without disabilities, while 24.5 percent of children with disabilities are raised by single women. <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is not good for single, working mothers who have a child with a disability.<span style=""> </span>Support services such as speech and language therapists, or neurologists, employ the typical “9-5” workday, forcing women to take time off to accompany their children and advocate for their best care.<span style=""> </span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->In addition to the stigma associated with having a child with a disability, a mother could very well alienate herself further from her employer by taking time off during the workday. <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, most children with developmental disabilities have associated medical conditions which require more than one ancillary service.<span style=""> </span>For example, a mother with a child diagnosed with Down’s syndrome might expect her child to require a pediatric cardiologist (about half of those with this diagnosis have congenital heart failure, as well as other physical and intellectual difficulties), or a child with autism may have language and sensory challenges.<span style=""> </span><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">With the enforcement of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (the legal mandate requiring educational agencies to provide special educational services to a child with a disabilities), mothers have a directive in the annual IEP (Individual Education Plan), requiring supports and services needed by a particular child.<span style=""> </span>However, if employers are unwilling to provide flexible work schedules for these mothers, they will be forced to choose between their employment and their child with special needs.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><i>-- Donna<o:p></o:p></i></p>WorkLife Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03294117311358345746noreply@blogger.com0