What Are The Different Forms Of Employment Discrimination Among Men and Women?
Sandra M. Ortega
University of Texas at El Paso
It would not be difficult to find at least five headlines a week, or read or hear about half a dozen different cases of employment discrimination in the papers, magazines, television, or news. On an immediate level, you or someone you know may be victim of on-the-job “prejudice”. On a national level, we read about sexual harassment cases, or people who have lost their jobs because they are the wrong sex, age, color, race, or wrong physically. By learning about unlawful and unfair practices at work, employees are prepared with tools to protect themselves against workplace discrimination. Employment discrimination is a serious issue across the globe that makes it illegal to hire or fire an employee on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex (EEOC Website 2010).
Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, many discrimination laws have been enacted by Congress and many state legislatures. When Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, it protected employees from general on-the-job discrimination based on race, religion, sex, and national origin, but for the next two decades, the focus was mainly on racial problems (Busse, 2004). Although there is no law against harboring a prejudice the law prohibits acting on that prejudice. Then in 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to prohibit age discrimination. In 1972 the Rehabilitation act was passed which prohibits discrimination against disabled persons. Those acts were followed in the nineties with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family and Medical Leave Act three years later. The very extent of these laws demonstrates that discrimination laws may serve every man or woman at one time or another. (Busse, 2004)
The number of incidents and the variety of ways in which workers are being discriminated against has not minimized. Those laws are now needed more than ever. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a government agency that is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against an employee. EEOC reported that for the fiscal year of 2009, 93,277 workplace discrimination charges were filed against private sector employers. These charges include race, sex, national origin, religion, retaliation, age, disability, and equal pay act (EEOC Website 2010). If an employee believes they have been discriminated against on the job or while applying for a job on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, they may file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Gender discrimination has become a real and very relevant problem in the workplace. Workers are compensated based on their personal performance and ability to deliver. Regardless of an employee’s gender, whoever performs best earns the right to advance. Gender discrimination may have been ignored 20 years ago but it is no longer tolerated in the workplace.
As a result in 1970, 46 women filed a landmark gender-discrimination case against the “Newsweek” magazine. They were independent, determined, young graduates of Seven Sisters colleges, brand new to New York City and ambitious. Yet they were repeatedly told during job interviews that women could never get to the top or even half way. They still went on to accept lower positions sorting mail, collecting news paper clippings, and delivering coffee. Determined to make a change they began to meet secretly first three, then nine, then eventually 46 woman who would become the pioneer group of media professionals to sue for employment discrimination based on gender under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The employer was NEWSWEEK magazine. No one would dare say today that “woman don’t write here,” as the NEWSWEEK women were told 40 years ago ((Bennett, Ellison, Ball, Register, & Skaggs 2010), however all but six of NEWWEEK’s 49 cover stories last year were written by men hardly calling it equality. In the years since these young women have set the stage for a wave of progress that still continues to move forward prohibiting gender discrimination.
Your skin color, race, nationality have nothing to do with how well you perform at work. Although, we all share differences, it is our ability to outperform another that sets us apart from each other. To prove that racial discrimination still exists today, three professors from the University of Princeton’s Sociology Department conducted an experiment in the low wage labor market in New York City. The professors recruited white, black, and Latino job applicants with similar characteristics and interpersonal skills. The applicants were given equal resumes and set to apply for hundreds of entry –level positions. The professors’ results concluded that black applicants were half likely to receive a response or job offer. In the professors conclusion they determined that black and Latino applicants with fair backgrounds did no better than the white applicants just out of prison (Pager, Bonikowski, & Western 2009). Their evidence went on to prove that various racial bias forms continue to determine the difference in low paying positions based on race or nationality.
Employers are not allowed to hire an employee based on their age. A potential employees experience and qualifications is all that is required. This protects both young and more mature workers from being discriminated against. Age should have no factor on job performance only that you are able and fit to do the job accordingly. As the Supreme Court noted, “It is the very essence of age discrimination for an older employee to be fired because the employer believes that productivity and competence decline with old age” (Busse 2004). A prime example of this is the case of Dr. Fawzy Salama who arrived in the United States in 1993 from Egypt to pursue his American dream in the medical field. Dr Salama was a surgeon with twenty-two years experience and was prepared to take the medical examination to meet residency requirements in order to work in California. After Dr. Salama passed his medical board examination, Dr. Salama applied for and received written acceptance to the anesthesiology internship program at King/Drive Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. Dr. Salama was told he still needed to interview for the position and that is when he experienced age discrimination. At some point during the interview he was informed that he was too old for the position. Dr. Salama was devastated and fell ill to a heart attack during his attempt to get an explanation to their decision. In 2000 after recovering from his heart attack, Dr. Salama sued the medical center and Los Angeles County alleging age discrimination, violation of public policy and breach of contract. The jury awarded Dr. Salama $5 million in damages (Allred 2006). Today under federal law it is unlawful for any employer to discriminate against employees or job applicants who are forty or older because of their age.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination it is the unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature by a person of authority toward a subordinate (Repa 2007). For several years the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) took no action against sexual harassment in employment. It was not until in late 1991 that the agency began enforcing the civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding sexual discrimination in the wake of the well publicized hearing to confirm Clarence Thomas a U.S. Supreme Justice. The accusations of sexual harassment made by Anita F. Hill against Clarence Thomas during his 1991 confirmation hearings raised consciousness about this issue (Repa 2007). Sexual harassment does not just happen to women. In the case of Christian v. J&J Snack Foods Corporation a heterosexual male employee won a sexual harassment case where the jury awarded him close to five million in damages for retaliation, negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional stress. According to evidence in Mr. Christian case, the J&J Foods supervisor grabbed and slapped Mr. Christian, and squeezed his genitals saying “Suck me” and “Blow me” (Allred 2006). On other occasions the J&J supervisor would thrust his penis into Mr. Christian’s backside (Allred 2006). Although Mr. Christian contacted executives and complained his pleas for help went ignored and retaliated against him to the point where he felt he could no longer work. Both men and woman benefit from strong laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the workforce.
Employment discrimination still exists and occurs when an employee suffers from unfavorable or unfair treatment due to their race, religion, age, national origin, sex, or disability. Even with laws in place to protect the individual worker discrimination is still live and real in our society. Awareness is the key and with organization such as EEOC and The Log Cabin Republicans who support fairness and equality for all Americans gay or heterosexual it is a step in the right direction.
\
FY 1997 | FY 1998 | FY 1999 | FY 2000 | FY 2001 | FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 | FY 2008 | FY 2009 | |
Total Charges | 80,680 | 79,591 | 77,444 | 79,896 | 80,840 | 84,442 | 81,293 | 79,432 | 75,428 | 75,768 | 82,792 | 95,402 | 93,277 |
Race | 29,199 | 28,820 | 28,819 | 28,945 | 28,912 | 29,910 | 28,526 | 27,696 | 26,740 | 27,238 | 30,510 | 33,937 | 33,579 |
36.2% | 36.2% | 37.3% | 36.2% | 35.8% | 35.4% | 35.1% | 34.9% | 35.5% | 35.9% | 37.0% | 35.6% | 36.0% | |
Sex | 24,728 | 24,454 | 23,907 | 25,194 | 25,140 | 25,536 | 24,362 | 24,249 | 23,094 | 23,247 | 24,826 | 28,372 | 28,028 |
30.7% | 30.7% | 30.9% | 31.5% | 31.1% | 30.2% | 30.0% | 30.5% | 30.6% | 30.7% | 30.1% | 29.7% | 30.0% | |
National Origin | 6,712 | 6,778 | 7,108 | 7,792 | 8,025 | 9,046 | 8,450 | 8,361 | 8,035 | 8,327 | 9,396 | 10,601 | 11,134 |
8.3% | 8.5% | 9.2% | 9.8% | 9.9% | 10.7% | 10.4% | 10.5% | 10.7% | 11.0% | 11.4% | 11.1% | 11.9% | |
Religion | 1,709 | 1,786 | 1,811 | 1,939 | 2,127 | 2,572 | 2,532 | 2,466 | 2,340 | 2,541 | 2,880 | 3,273 | 3,386 |
2.1% | 2.2% | 2.3% | 2.4% | 2.6% | 3.0% | 3.1% | 3.1% | 3.1% | 3.4% | 3.5% | 3.4% | 3.6% | |
Retaliation - All Statutes | 18,198 | 19,114 | 19,694 | 21,613 | 22,257 | 22,768 | 22,690 | 22,740 | 22,278 | 22,555 | 26,663 | 32,690 | 33,613 |
22.6% | 24.0% | 25.4% | 27.1% | 27.5% | 27.0% | 27.9% | 28.6% | 29.5% | 29.8% | 32.3% | 34.3% | 36.0% | |
Retaliation - Title VII only | 16,394 | 17,246 | 17,883 | 19,753 | 20,407 | 20,814 | 20,615 | 20,240 | 19,429 | 19,560 | 23,371 | 28,698 | 28,948 |
20.3% | 21.7% | 23.1% | 24.7% | 25.2% | 24.6% | 25.4% | 25.5% | 25.8% | 25.8% | 28.3% | 30.1% | 31.0% | |
Age | 15,785 | 15,191 | 14,141 | 16,008 | 17,405 | 19,921 | 19,124 | 17,837 | 16,585 | 16,548 | 19,103 | 24,582 | 22,778 |
19.6% | 19.1% | 18.3% | 20.0% | 21.5% | 23.6% | 23.5% | 22.5% | 22.0% | 21.8% | 23.2% | 25.8% | 24.4% | |
Disability | 18,108 | 17,806 | 17,007 | 15,864 | 16,470 | 15,964 | 15,377 | 15,376 | 14,893 | 15,575 | 17,734 | 19,453 | 21,451 |
22.4% | 22.4% | 22.0% | 19.9% | 20.4% | 18.9% | 18.9% | 19.4% | 19.7% | 20.6% | 21.4% | 20.4% | 23.0% | |
Equal Pay Act | 1,134 | 1,071 | 1,044 | 1,270 | 1,251 | 1,256 | 1,167 | 1,011 | 970 | 861 | 818 | 954 | 942 |
1.4% | 1.3% | 1.3% | 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.5% | 1.4% | 1.3% | 1.3% | 1.1% | 1.0% | 1.0% | 1.0% |
Historical Data Chart from EEOC charting the number and different employment discrimination claims
References
Allred G. (2006) Fight back and win. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Bennet, J. Ellison, J. Ball, S. Register, S. Skaggs, T. (2010). Are we there yet? Newsweek, 155 Issue (13), 42-46.
Busse, R. (2004). Employeess’ rights: Your practical handbook to workplace law. Naperville, IL Sphinx Publishing.
Repa, B. (2007). Your rights in the workplace (8th ed.). ,[rev.] Berkeley, CA: NOLO.
Log Cabin Republicans. (2010) Web page. Log Cabin Republicans Website. Retrieved from http://online.logcabin.org/
Pager, D. Bonikowski, B. Wester, B. (2009) Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: A field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74 (5), 777-799.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2010) Web page. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/
