PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AT WORK

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AT WORK
In 1978, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include a more specific prohibition on pregnancy-related discrimination. Ever since then, it has been unlawful for employers having 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.
The most clear-cut forms of pregnancy discrimination occur when an employer refuses to hire an applicant because she is pregnant or fires an existing employee because she becomes pregnant. But there are more subtle, but no less prohibited, forms of pregnancy discrimination, such as in the areas of accrual and crediting of seniority, compensation, leave from work, health insurance, and other fringe benefits. Although pregnancy is in many ways a unique condition, a rule of thumb for employers is that they may not treat pregnant employees adversely as compared with employees having comparable temporary medical conditions.
If, because of her pregnancy, an employee is temporarily unable to work, she must be treated like any other temporarily disabled employee. This standard does not render an employer powerless to require anything of the employee, but the approach must be even-handed. For example, if the employer normally requires a doctor's statement verifying an inability to work, the same can be required of a pregnant employee.
If the employer has a policy allowing temporarily disabled workers to ease back into work with modified tasks or different assignments, similar flexibility must be shown to the pregnant worker. If an employer generally holds open a job for a certain period of time for someone out on sick leave or disability leave, a pregnant employee is entitled to such treatment, no more or less.
Ironclad rules are more likely to expose companies to liability under the federal discrimination law. A rule requiring a pregnant employee on leave to stay on leave until the baby is born, regardless of whether she may have recovered from the condition related to the pregnancy, invites a lawsuit. Employers also cannot have a policy that prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined time period after giving birth.



















Job applicants with African-American-sounding names are far less likely to get a callback than are similarly qualified "white" candidates, according to researchers at the University of Chicago and MIT, who submitted 5,000 bogus resumes in response to job ads. Half the resumes bore stereotypical African-American names such as Latonya and Tyrone; half sported traditionally Anglo names like Kristin and Brad.
Candidates with Caucasian-sounding names were contacted more frequently than those with a presumed ethnic identity and identical resume. That is, 10 percent of those with typically white names were called back, compared to just 6.7 percent with black-sounding names. Some names may be especially unpalatable for employers: Tamika was called back 5 percent of the time; Aisha, a scant 2 percent.
Marianne Bertrand, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Chicago, also found that highly qualified "black" candidates had no advantage over their less qualified black peers, but "white" candidates' odds of an interview skyrocketed with increased skills.


Cancer sufferers still face discrimination at work despite amendments to Disability Discrimination Act
05 October 2006 10:16
Employers are still discriminating against women with cancer despite changes in the law aimed at protecting workers from unfair treatment.
Figures from the Disability Rights Commission's (DRC) helpline show that this year the DRC has taken on average two calls a week from women with breast cancer complaining of unfair treatment at work.
In total, more than 70 women with breast cancer and 103 people with other forms of cancer have called its helpline complaining of problems with their employers.
And in December 2005 means people with these conditions receive legal protection from the point of diagnosis.
Among callers with other cancers, most (82%) cited employers failing to make reasonable adjustments that would keep them in work; nearly one in five callers reported having been dismissed; a further 13% of callers complained of facing threats of dismissal; and nearly 6% of callers were facing disciplinary action.
For workers with cancer, reasonable adjustments could include flexible working, alterations to working hours and time off for medical treatment.
Agnes Fletcher, assistant director of communications at the DRC, said: "Despite changes in the law to protect people with cancer and long-term health conditions from unfair treatment at work, many employers still haven't got the message.
"Direct discrimination and failures to make adjustments is turning the world of work into a very hostile environment for workers with these disabilities."



As I promised, when I published "The American Way" I am ready to broach the subject of workplace discrimination in the 21st century. Although, again, if you will find yourself offended by this topic, please read no further.

The basis of this article is a topic close to my heart. As you already know, if you have read the above-mentioned, I am married to a black man and live in the heart of the Deep South.
What you don't know is since I lost my job, in January, 1999, I have been a self-employed jane of all trades in order to avoid putting myself in the same situation again, and having to watch others being exploited and passed over lateral transfers or promotions because of their gender or race. The things I saw in the corporate world of this particular organization sent my head reeling.
For a little background:
I started out with the company in the file room as a temp, and was granted the opportunity to post for an internal position because of my work performance. I tested for and was hired for the position.
My boss was ecstatic with my work. He praised me all over the building, from Human Resources to the company president. I was the best secretary he'd ever had.
Four months into my probationary period, a job came open for which I was highly qualified and that would pay more that $2000 a year more. So I posted for it. There was no harm in trying.
Then I got sick. I had to be off work for over a week, doctor's orders. While I was at home, recovering, I decided to get some pictures together to put on my desk as work.
The Monday I went back to work, I made sure I was there a few minutes early so I could put up my pictures and make my desk my own. My boss came back from a business trip the next afternoon. When I came back from lunch, he wrote me up for being off work, after he had been so nice about my getting well.
A short time later, I was told that I would have to have him sign a paper and referral in order to be considered for the new position. I gave him the paper. What I got back was apalling. I couldn't believe the terrible things he had to say about my work. I knew what had happened, and I knew why, but because he did it in such a sly way, there was no way for me to fight it.
Although I got the new position, I was watched constantly and was made to perform at a rate much higher that the others in the department. I received no training and was expected to complete tasks based on former knowledge. It was a hopeless situation. It wasn't long before I was asked to resign. There had been too many complaints. There had been too much work returned. The me interject here that my work was exemplary and my error ratio was less than 3%. My co-workers' error ratios, from what I could tell, were closer to 10%. So, I asked what was an acceptable ratio. Upon being told that it is up to the discretion of the supervisor, I knew I was gone. There is no way to fight termination when the state you live in has "at will" termination for all employers, and the company has no ground rules, with one exception. That exception being dress code for the women. We weren't allowed to go to work without pantyhose or stockings under our skirts.

So I resigned.
In the meantime, I had learned from many people who'd worked there for years, that women and non-whites were never promoted beyond supervisory level. There was only one black male working in a position above that of custodian in the entire state, and his was a field position. No female in the company ever managed to get above a grade 9 pay scale because the management positions were strictly for the men.
Black women were passed over for promotion on a regular basis, and the jobs were filled from outside, with white employees who had fewer skills and qualifications. No explanation, or even an apology.
New discrimination, or just the old stuff being handled in a way that won't get the company in trouble? You tell me. I would love to hear your comments.
Next time...segregation and racial/sexual discrimination within a county school district that is so blatantly obvious I don't know how they get away with it.