Introduction

Recently, a group of Republican lawmakers in Washington State introduced a bill that seeks to allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals under the guise of religious freedom. The bill was introduced shortly after a local florist was sued for denying service to a gay couple. This bill has sparked controversy and pushback from civil rights advocates.

Background on Anti-Discrimination Laws

Washington State currently has strong anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. These laws were put in place to protect LGBTQ+ individuals and ensure equal access to employment, housing, and public accommodations. However, some lawmakers are now seeking to undermine these laws.

Bill Seeking Exemption for Businesses

The newly introduced bill seeks to create an exemption to Washington State’s anti-discrimination laws for businesses that operate based on religious beliefs. This would allow businesses to legally discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, specifically in the context of wedding services. This bill would grant businesses free reign to deny services to same-sex couples without facing legal repercussions.

Implications for LGBTQ+ Community

If passed, this bill would have harmful consequences for the LGBTQ+ community, particularly same-sex couples seeking wedding services. It would set a dangerous precedent that discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals is acceptable if rooted in religious beliefs. Many fear that this would lead to a surge in discrimination and hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community.

Opposition and Advocacy Efforts

Civil rights advocates have spoken out against this bill, arguing that it goes against the values of equality and non-discrimination. Many are calling on lawmakers to reject this bill and uphold anti-discrimination laws. Advocacy efforts are also underway to raise awareness about the harmful implications of such a bill and to fight for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.

Conclusion

The proposed bill seeking an exemption to anti-discrimination laws in Washington State would have devastating consequences for the LGBTQ+ community. This bill would allow businesses to deny service to same-sex couples based on religious beliefs, setting a dangerous precedent for discrimination. It is crucial that lawmakers and advocates continue to speak out against this bill and defend the rights of all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

A number of Republican lawmakers filed a bill today seeking an exemption to the state’s anti-discrimination statutes just weeks after legal action was initiated against a local florist who denied service to a homosexual couple for their upcoming wedding.

The piece of legislation introduced by Republican Senator Sharon Brown would allow local businesses the right to deny goods or services if they felt doing so went against their religious beliefs, their philosophical beliefs, or sincere matters of conscience.

This measure would not apply to the denial of goods or services to individuals who are deemed as part of a protected class under federal law—meaning the goods or services cannot be denied based on the customer’s religion, disability or race.

Brown claims that the measure seeks to protect people or religious bodies from legal persecution. “There is a glaring lack of protection for religion in our state’s laws,” said Brown.

Moreover signing on to the bill were Senators Janea Holmquist, Mike Hewitt, Don Benton, Jim Honeyford, Mike Padden, John Smith, John Braun, Linda Evans and Ann Rivers.

The piece of legislation has not yet been scheduled for a public hearing nor has it been placed in front of a committee. The bill is not likely to encounter such measures before the regular legislative concludes this Sunday. That said, if a special session is called for as expected, the bill could be heard during this juncture.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union in our nation’s capital filed a lawsuit in response to a March incident in which Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide service for Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll’s wedding, despite the two men being longtime customers of her flower shop. The shop, which is in Brown’s district, was the subject of a consumer protection lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Ferguson delivered a letter last month asking the florist to comply with the law, but said Stutzman responded by saying she would refute any state action to enforce the statute.

While Washington State voters legalized gay marriage in November of 2012, protections against discriminations based on sexual orientation were previously codified. Under state law, it is illegal for any business to refuse to sell goods or execute services to any individual because of their sexual orientation.

Introduction

On September 25, 2012, a federal court issued a superseding indictment against three East Haven police officers. The indictment accuses the officers of violating the civil rights of community members in the East Haven area. This article will provide an overview of the indictment and its implications.

Background on the East Haven Police Officers

The three East Haven police officers—David Cari, Dennis Spaulding, and Jason Zullo—had previously been indicted in January 2012 on charges of conspiracy to commit police misconduct, false arrest, and excessive force. The new superseding indictment expands on those charges, including accusations of racial profiling and conspiracy to violate individuals’ civil rights.

Accusations of Civil Rights Violations

The indictment accuses the East Haven police officers of engaging in a pattern of discriminatory behavior, including targeting Latinos and using excessive force against them. The officers allegedly made false arrests, used racial slurs, and engaged in other forms of misconduct.

Consequences for the Officers and Community

If found guilty, the East Haven police officers could face significant legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. The indictment also has implications for the East Haven community, particularly for Latino residents who have been subject to alleged discriminatory behavior by the police.

Response to the Indictment

The indictment has sparked a range of responses, including protests and calls for accountability. Community members, civil rights advocates, and politicians have spoken out against the alleged misconduct, calling for reform and greater police accountability.

Moving Forward

The East Haven police officers’ indictment highlights larger issues of police misconduct and systemic discrimination in law enforcement. It underscores the need for transparency, accountability, and reform in police departments across the country to ensure that civil rights are protected and respected for all members of the community.

Conclusion

The court’s indictment of the three East Haven police officers on civil rights violations is a significant development in the ongoing struggle for police accountability and the protection of civil rights. While the officers are innocent until proven guilty, the charges raise important questions about the role of law enforcement in ensuring equal justice under the law.

On September 25, 2012, the US Attorney for the District of Connecticut and the FBI’s New York Office announced a superseding indictment against David Cari, Dennis Spaulding, and Jason Zullo—all East Haven Police Officers.  The men are accused of violating civil rights of members in the East Haven area.

According to the superseding indictment, the police officers committed 35 acts that violated civil rights.  The three officers conducted unreasonable searches and seizures, used unreasonable force during arrests, and wrote false reports about the arrests.  Many of these arrests were directed toward Latino community members, and many of the unreasonable searches and seizures were directed toward Latino-owned businesses.

Particularly, the new charges against Zullo add onto an incident that occurred in October of 2008.  Officer Zullo was charged after he repeatedly hit a traveling motorcycle with two passengers with his squad car.  The motorcycle crashed and the two victims were thrown to the ground.  Zullo then proceeded to punch one of the victims, who was already injured and pinned to the ground, and then wrote a false police report.

Each of the defendants is charged with one count of conspiracy against rights.  Officer Zullo is charged with three counts of using unreasonable force by a law enforcement officer, and Officer Spalding received one similar charge.  Officer Spalding is also charged with two counts of deprivation of rights for making arrests with enough probably cause, and Cari is facing one similar charge.

The men still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.  Spaulding, Zullo, and Cari all face one charge of obstruction of a federal investigation as well.  Each count carries of maximum penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine up to $250,000.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Introduction

The East Orange School District in New Jersey has recently resolved a civil rights violation case with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The case involved allegations of racial discrimination in discipline practices within the district. The agreement reached marks an important step towards addressing issues of systemic racism in schools.

Background on the Case

The East Orange School District was under investigation by the Office for Civil Rights for alleged discrimination against African American students in the administration of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. The investigation uncovered evidence of racial disparities in discipline, with black students being disproportionately affected by disciplinary actions compared to their white peers.

Resolution Agreement

The resolution agreement between the Department of Education and the East Orange School District outlines a plan for addressing the issues of racial discrimination in disciplinary practices. The district has agreed to implement a series of measures to address the disparities in discipline, including training for staff on issues of cultural competency and implicit bias, as well as implementing restorative justice practices in lieu of traditional disciplinary practices.

Implications for Education and Civil Rights

The resolution of this case has significant implications for both education and civil rights. It highlights the importance of addressing systemic issues of racism within schools that continue to disproportionately impact students of color. The agreement reached between the Department of Education and the East Orange School District serves as a model for other districts to follow in addressing similar issues of racial discrimination.

Moving Forward

Going forward, it is crucial that efforts to address systemic racism in schools continue. This includes examining disciplinary practices, hiring practices, and curriculum to ensure that all students are receiving an education that is free from discrimination. Additionally, efforts must be made to ensure that students who have been affected by discriminatory practices receive adequate support and resources.

Conclusion

The resolution of the case between the East Orange School District and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights marks an important step towards addressing issues of systemic racism within schools. It highlights the importance of addressing issues of discrimination in disciplinary practices and serves as a model for other districts to follow. It is crucial that efforts to address systemic racism in education continue moving forward.

The Department of Education has been involved in an ongoing case with the East Orange School District in New Jersey after the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) found the school was in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  The OCR announced they reached an agreement with the school district on October 1, 2012.

The OCR initially started the investigation to see if the school district was inappropriately placing qualified students with a disability in separate classrooms instead of a regular class which is required by Section 504 and Title II.  The investigation concluded that the school district was placing other qualified disabled students in “self-contained classrooms.”  The OCR revealed that between 2010 and 2011, the district had a total of 1,462 disabled students and 64 percent were placed in “self-contained placements.” Furthermore, 535 of the students with learning disabilities were placed in “self-contained settings.”

The district worked alongside OCR during the investigation, and a resolution agreement was reached.  The district agreed to create new procedures for placing qualified disabled students in regular classroom settings unless the district concludes in writing that the student cannot reach satisfactory results even with the help of aids or additional services.

The district will also train staff with new teaching practices, and the district will also launch a review of all disabled students who are currently in self-contained settings.  If parents or guardians are still displeased with the placement, the district announces they will respect their right to a due process hearing.

Russlynn Ali, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, states, “Whenever possible, students with disabilities should be education in regular educational programs in our nation’s public schools.  I applaud the steps the East Orange School District has agreed to take to address immediate concerns and to put systems in place to help ensure its compliance with Section 504 and Title II.”

Source: U.S. Department of Education

Introduction

Civil rights violations continue to be a problem in America, and a recent case involving a former New Mexico corrections officer highlights this issue. In October 2012, Demetrio Juan Gonzales was found to have violated the civil rights of inmates at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center. The case is a reminder of the importance of upholding the rights of all individuals, regardless of their circumstances.

The Case

Demetrio Juan Gonzales worked as a corrections officer at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 2012, he was accused of physically assaulting inmates and violating their civil rights by using excessive force.

Gonzales was indicted on five charges, including violating the civil rights of inmates and falsifying reports to cover up his actions. He was found guilty on four of these charges and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

The Implications

The case against Demetrio Juan Gonzales highlights the ongoing problem of civil rights violations within the criminal justice system. Individuals who have been incarcerated are some of the most vulnerable members of society, and it is essential that their rights are protected.

The case also highlights the importance of holding law enforcement officers accountable for their actions. Police brutality and other forms of abuse of power are all too common, and it is only through holding accountable those who commit these acts that we can hope to prevent them from happening in the future.

The Importance of Civil Rights

The case against Gonzales is a reminder of the importance of civil rights in America. Every individual is entitled to certain fundamental rights, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or any other factor.

The criminal justice system has a responsibility to uphold these rights, even for individuals who have been incarcerated. Failing to do so not only violates the rights of individuals but also erodes trust in the system as a whole.

Conclusion

The case against Demetrio Juan Gonzales is a stark reminder of the ongoing problem of civil rights violations within the criminal justice system. It highlights the importance of holding law enforcement officers accountable for their actions and protecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their circumstances.

As we continue to navigate the complexities of our justice system, it is essential that we remain vigilant in our efforts to uphold civil rights and promote justice for all. Only by working together can we hope to create a more just and equitable society for everyone.

On October 3, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that a former corrections officer, Demetrio Juan Gonzales, at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center pleaded guilty to violating the civil rights of a person in his custody.  Gonzales pleaded to sticking then choking a victim in the shower room and dress-out of the Metropolitan Detention Center.  

According to court documents, Gonzales was assigned to the Receiving Discharge Transfer (RDT) Unit at the MDC during the morning hours of December 21, 2011.  This is the area where inmates are booked after they are arrested.  Gonzales was in charge of photographic and fingerprinting.  

The victim was arrested for a DUI, and during the booking process, he was not cooperating—although he never made a physical threat to anyone.  The court documents show that Gonzales become angry and escorted the victim over to the shower room and dress-out area where he knew there were no surveillance cameras.  

The victim had marks on his neck the next day that indicated Gonzalez beat and choked him.  Because of his action, Gonzalez faces a maximum penalty of 10 year in prison.  He is currently on supervised release until his hearing.  

Other MDC correction officers were also indicted for charged that related to the same incident.  The defendants are Kevin Casaus and Matthew Pendley.  Causas was accused of violating the civil rights of the victim after he shoved and struck the victim.  He then proceeded to make false statements to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office.  Matthew Pendley is charged with obstruction of justice for making false statements and tampering with evidence after he cleaned up the blood from the shower room and dress-out area. 

The case was investigated by the FBI’s Albuquerque Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark T. Baker and Trial Attorney Fara Gold prosecuted the case.  

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Introduction

On March 28, 2014, former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the 15th annual Emily’s List Gala Dinner in Washington, D.C. In her speech, Clinton discussed the importance of work-life balance and policies that support women and families in the workforce.

The Importance of Work-Life Balance

Clinton emphasized the need for work-life balance, noting that it is essential for individuals to have the flexibility they need to balance their personal and professional lives. She cited research showing that work-life balance is associated with better physical and mental health, higher job satisfaction, and more productive work.

Addressing Workplace Challenges

Clinton also addressed the challenges that many women face in the workforce, such as unequal pay, lack of access to child care, and discrimination. She argued that employers need to do more to address these issues and create a more supportive work environment for women and families.

Supporting Family-Friendly Policies

Clinton called for policies and programs that support women and families in the workforce, including paid family and medical leave, affordable child care, and flexible work arrangements. She noted that these policies not only support women, but also benefit families and businesses.

The Role of Government and the Private Sector

Clinton argued that achieving work-life balance and supporting women and families in the workforce requires collaboration between the government and the private sector. She called for policies that promote these values at the national level, as well as initiatives led by businesses and employers to create more family-friendly workplaces.

Conclusion

In her speech on work-life balance, Hillary Clinton spoke to the challenges that many women face in the workforce and the importance of policies and programs that support women and families. She emphasized that work-life balance is essential for physical and mental well-being, job satisfaction, and productivity, and called for collaboration between the government and private sector to achieve these goals.

When Hillary Clinton became pregnant with her daughter Chelsea, she had no idea that one day they would live in the White House.  At that time, Hillary was the only female partner working for her law firm—in fact, the first female partner the firm had ever had.

At a recent State Department event to celebrate National Work-Life Balance and Family Month, Hillary talked about her experiences trying to seek out work life balance as a powerful woman working in the legal field.

“Before I had my daughter, it was theoretical, you know?” she said.  “After I had my daughter, it was urgent.”  Clinton said that her pregnancy alone seemed difficult for her fellow law firm partners to accept in 1980, and that they would look away from her when she walked down the hallway in her third trimester.

No one, Clinton said, even tried to talk to her about the pregnancy or even when she’d be coming back to work.  Her firm’s maternity leave policy was decided when, in a post-birth discussion with a partner, she was finally asked when she’d return to work.  “Oh, I don’t know, maybe in four months,” she said—and the firm had a four month maternity leave policy after that.

National Work-Life and Family Month was declared for the first time in October of 2003 by Senate Resolution 533, and work-life balance has made some significant strides since Clinton’s law firm partnership.  Today, most law firms, as well as other employers, are more clear about their maternity leave policies.

However, the United States remains the only developed nation without mandatory paid maternity leave for employees.  The only required leave employers must provide to an employee who has given birth is FMLA leave, which is unpaid and lasts just six weeks.  This is in contrast to policies in nations like Canada, Sweden, and Norway, which give months or even years of paid parental leave to both mothers and fathers.

Schedule flexibility is also something that is difficult for most employees to obtain in America.  Because United States employers are not required to provide these benefits, many employees experience a great deal of difficulty trying to negotiate work-life balance.  Clinton noted in her speech that current research shows a 20 percent increase in employee loyalty at offices that allow more flexibility.

Employers who want to ensure that they’re able to get top employees and keep those employees need to consider implementing flexible programs, and not just for women of childbearing age, according to Clinton.  Flexibility may also be useful to employees in other situations—for example, those with aging parents with health problems, or who are having serious illnesses themselves.

The State Department’s response to the challenges of creating a work-life balance for employees was to create a Work-Life division that is responsible for helping employees with important decisions involving their work-life balance.  The Work-Life division provides childcare and childcare subsidies for State Department employees, as well as assisting employees with referrals to services that can help them solve personal or professional problems.

Source: State.gov

Introduction

Señor Frog’s, a popular chain of Mexican restaurants in tourist areas, is facing a lawsuit filed by a group of nine claimants who allege that they were subjected to harassment and discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that top executives at the company not only condoned such behavior, but participated in it. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The claimants allege that they were subjected to repeated and flagrant harassment, discrimination, and assault while working at Señor Frog’s. They claim that the harassment occurred at the hands of management personnel, including top executives, and that the company failed to take appropriate action to address the issue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a complaint against the company alleging violations of federal law.

The Allegations

According to the EEOC filing, the harassment and discriminatory practices at Señor Frog’s were widespread and involved top executives at the company. The allegations include sexual harassment, age discrimination, and retaliation against employees who spoke out against the abusive behavior.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit seeks compensation for the harm caused to the claimants as a result of the harassment and discrimination they experienced at Señor Frog’s. The claimants are also seeking an injunction to prevent the company from engaging in such behavior in the future, as well as expanded employee training and oversight.

Reaction

The lawsuit has drawn attention to the issue of harassment and discrimination in the restaurant industry and the responsibility of employers to address and prevent such behavior. It serves as a reminder that all employees have the right to work in an environment free from harassment and discrimination, regardless of their position or industry.

Preventing Harassment and Discrimination in the Workplace

Employers can take steps to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace by establishing clear policies and procedures, conducting training and education programs for employees, and creating a culture of respect and accountability. Managers and supervisors must also be trained on how to recognize and address instances of harassment and discrimination and ensure that appropriate action is taken.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against Señor Frog’s highlights the serious and harmful impact of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Employers have a responsibility to create a safe and respectful work environment, and failure to do so can result in legal action. It is important that companies take proactive steps to prevent and address harassment and discrimination, ensuring that all employees are treated with dignity and respect.

Señor Frog’s, a chain of Mexican restaurants associated with party-heavy tourist areas, is being sued by a group of nine claimants who say that they were subjected to flagrant and repeated harassment and discrimination.  According to the claimants, harassment and discriminatory practices occurred at the highest levels of the company.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing accused the restaurant owner and top executives of encouraging and even actively participating in harassment and assaults.

According to the complaint filed by the EEOC, during the time period from June 2007 to December 2008, at least nine employees of the Waikiki Señor Frog’s restaurant were verbally and physically harassed.

The young women involved in the lawsuit were all in their teens or twenties at the time that the alleged harassment occurred.  The complaint alleges that management would encourage underage employees to drink with them, and that they would also imply that they were getting the women drunk in order to have sex with them.

Managers at the Señor Frog’s branch were also accused of making demands for body shots to be served using the bodies of female bartenders or customers.  Some of these managers also are accused of having sex with customers during their shift, in front of female employees working under them.

Verbal harassment accusations were extensive, and included allegations that the restaurant’s owner told one employee that the way she moved in a skirt caused him to become aroused.  Sexual advances and demands for sexual intercourse were frequent according to the complaint.

In addition to harassing employees, the EEOC alleges that Señor Frog’s subjected them to a continuing pattern of employment discrimination at all levels of hiring and promotion.  Male bartenders were promoted into better positions with better hours even though more qualified female bartenders were being passed up, the complaint indicates.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made the accusations against Señor Frog’s earlier in November, stating that the extent of the harassment, as well as the high status of the harassers in the company, was what made them take the case.

Ordinarily, in a case where the harassment went as far as the restaurant owner and restaurant group, the EEOC would file the complaint against the parent company as well as the individual Hawaii unit of Señor Frog’s.  However, because the headquarters for the parent company of Señor Frog’s is located in Mexico, the EEOC has no jurisdiction and will not be able to sue the parent company in United States courts.

The harassment and discrimination experienced by the employees at Señor Frog’s is prohibited conduct according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This portion of the law made it a civil offense to discriminate against employees or create a hostile workplace environment through workplace harassment.  The EEOC is seeking punitive damages, lost wages, compensatory damages, and front pay for the women affected by the alleged harassment and discrimination.

Source: eeoc.gov

Introduction

A former employee of Target Corporation is suing the company for violating her rights under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The woman alleges that she was fired while pregnant, which is illegal under federal law. Here’s what you need to know about the case.

Background

The former employee worked at a Target store in Pennsylvania and was informed that her position was being eliminated shortly after informing her supervisor that she was pregnant. The employee claims that she was performing her job duties satisfactorily and had no prior disciplinary issues. She alleges that she was terminated solely because of her pregnancy.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed by Congress in 1978 to prohibit employers from discriminating against pregnant employees. The law requires employers to treat pregnant employees in the same manner as other employees who have similar job requirements or limitations. The law also prohibits retaliation against employees who assert their rights under the PDA.

The Lawsuit

The former employee is suing Target for violating her rights under the PDA. She alleges that she was fired solely because of her pregnancy, which is illegal under federal law. Target sought summary judgment in the case, but the court denied the request, allowing the case to move forward to trial.

Expected Outcome

The case is expected to be decided at the trial level in 2013. If the former employee prevails, she may be awarded damages for the harm caused by Target’s discrimination and be reinstated in her former position. The case serves as a warning to employers that discrimination against pregnant employees is illegal and may result in legal action.

Preventing Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

Employers can take steps to prevent pregnancy discrimination in the workplace by ensuring that their policies and practices are in compliance with federal law. Managers and supervisors should be trained on how to recognize and prevent pregnancy discrimination, and employees should be educated on their rights under the PDA. It is also important for employers to have a complaint process in place to address and investigate any allegations of discrimination.

Conclusion

The lawsuit against Target serves as a reminder of the importance of complying with federal law regarding pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Employers must treat pregnant employees the same as any other employee and may not discriminate against them on the basis of their pregnancy. Failure to do so can result in legal action and harm to both the employer’s reputation and bottom line.

Claiming that the company violated her rights according to the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a former employee is suing Target Corporation.  Last week, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced that they would not grant summary judgment to Target.  This ruling allows the case to go forward, and it is expected to be decided at the trial level sometime in 2013.

According to Christina Spigarelli’s attorneys, Spigarelli was employed by Target for approximately two years before she became pregnant and found out.  At the time when she notified her employer that she had become pregnant, she had not faced any disciplinary action within the company for over 10 months.  Prior to that, she had been disciplined at one time for apprehending a shoplifting suspect in a way that violated the company’s protocols for asset protection and loss prevention.

However, her announcement of her pregnancy seemed to change how her supervisor treated her.  She was given repeated warnings suddenly for violating parts of her job’s protocol—parts which she had not been accused of violating even once in the time before she announced her pregnancy.  After the third of these violations was recorded within a two week period, Spigarelli says that her supervisor informed her that her employment had been terminated.

The violations being recorded weren’t just suspicious because of their timing.  According to Spigarelli, her supervisor actually spoke with her about her pregnancy, and did so in an alarming way.  The supervisor told her that “pregnancy hormones” made women into poor decision makers, and talked about experiences with other pregnant women that made her feel this way.  These comments had the effect of making Spigarelli feel belittled for her pregnancy and delegitimized her authority in her department according to the complaint.

The supervisor told Spigarelli that pregnant women “get emotional and their hormones get all affected,” and that Spigarelli “was being too emotional and getting caught up into things.”  The district court judge ruled that these comments, in combination with the suspicious timing of the new conduct warnings, made summary judgment impossible in the case.

When being accused of discrimination under Title VII or the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is not enough in courts for companies to simply give someone enough written warnings until they are forced to leave.  If the courts determine that the relationship between a woman’s pregnancy and her termination were causal, then the company will be held liable for that discrimination even if they were able to indicate some other reason for the termination.

Employers are also not allowed, according to standards set by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to “constructively terminate” an employee by creating a workplace environment that would make a reasonable person quit.  The fact that the EEOC is now pursuing these cases for pregnancy discrimination in the workplace means that employers should be especially careful to make sure that pregnant women are being treated in accordance with the law.

Source: uscourts.gov, eeoc.gov

Introduction

The American Association of University Women has recently released a study that suggests that the gender pay gap starts early in women’s careers, often before they even enter the workforce. This finding is significant as it highlights the need for action to address this issue at a young age.

Background on the Gender Pay Gap

The gender pay gap has been a contentious issue for decades, with women earning less than their male counterparts for doing the same job. It is a complex issue with many contributing factors, including discrimination, lack of access to education and training, and societal expectations.

Study Findings

The American Association of University Women’s study found that women’s earnings are impacted by a variety of factors early in their careers, including the major they choose in college, their first job out of college, and the amount of student debt they carry. Women’s earnings are also affected by the gender pay gap that exists in their chosen field.

Implications for Women in the Workforce

The findings of this study have significant implications for women in the workforce, suggesting that they are already at a disadvantage when they first start their careers. This means that the gender pay gap is not just a problem for women in mid-career or later, but is an issue that affects women from the beginning of their working lives.

Action Needed

In light of these findings, it is crucial that action is taken to address the gender pay gap. This includes efforts to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, increasing access to education and training, and supporting women in their careers. Employers can also take steps to ensure that they are paying their employees fairly and without regard to gender.

Conclusion

The study by the American Association of University Women highlights the need for action to address the gender pay gap, which starts early in women’s careers. It is crucial that efforts are made to eliminate discrimination and support women in their careers, as well as increasing access to education and training. Addressing the gender pay gap is not just a women’s issue, it is an issue that affects us all and requires a coordinated effort to solve.

The topic of a gender pay gap is hotly contested at the national political level.  Recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act was championed by Democrats in the House and Senate, but was opposed by Republicans and eventually blocked.  According to a recent study by the American Association of University Women, the pay gap is still a problem—and it starts earlier than most people think.

According to the AAUW’s study, women are paid significantly less than men as soon as one year after college graduation.  While some opponents of paycheck fairness legislation have argued that this gap is due to a difference in professions for men and women, the study shows that this is not the case.

While in some professional fields—like education, math, biology, humanities, and healthcare—men and women were paid about the same, in others the difference was marked.  While a male graduate of an engineering program can expect to make about $55,000 a year after graduation, his female counterpart would make around $48,500.

Similarly, male business majors earned about $7,000 more than female business majors, and another $7,000 gap in favor of men existed in the social sciences.  The starkest contrast was in the field of computer and information sciences.  Women in that field can expect to make just $39,000 a year after graduating from college.  Men make over $51,000—a difference of $12,000 that studies indicate becomes even bigger as men and women continue in the workforce.

The study shows a difference in women’s wages that cannot be explained by maternity leave or childcare responsibilities.  Because the survey was taken just a year after graduation, it is also not affected as much by differing requests for raises.

One of the most significant impacts of this pay difference, according to the AAUW, is that university educated women have more difficulty than men in paying their federal student loans.  Women’s paychecks take a bigger hit from loans, and more women default on their student loans than men.

The fields that have the most significant pay difference for women are also the fields that tend to attract the fewest women, suggesting that institutional discrimination in salary and job advancement may be contributing to women’s lower rates of entry into those majors.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed into law in 2009, allows American women greater ability to sue employers who are paying people less based on their gender.  This legislation has prompted a new look at creating new laws that can help women get a fair shake in the workplace.

Sources: eeoc.gov, aauw.org, house.gov