Benefits and Same Sex Marriage

Exactly two years after the landmark DOMA decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees a nationwide right to same-sex marriages.   All states, including the District of Columbia, must now recognize these unions.

What does that mean for an employer?  Review your benefits plans to ensure you have accounted for this new ruling! The impact may differ from state to state with respect to benefits.  One note, regardless of where an employee lives, s/he will be entitled to take leave under FMLA to care for a legally married same - sex spouse.

Department of Labor. Overtime Protection

Today the Department of Labor announced a proposed rule that would extend overtime protections to nearly 5 million white collar workers within the first year of its implementation.  Failure to update the overtime regulations has left an exception to overtime eligibility originally meant for highly-compensated executive, administrative, and professional employees now applying to workers earning as little as $23,660 a year.  For example, a convenience store manager, fast food assistant manager, or some office workers may be expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week or more, making less than the poverty level for a family of four, and not receive a dime of overtime pay.  Today's proposed regulation is a critical first step toward ensuring that hard-working Americans are compensated fairly and have a chance to get ahead.

Living Wage for Washington Vetoed

Washington, D.C.'s Mayor Vincent Gray on Thursday vetoed the so-called "living wage bill" that would have required big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart to pay workers at least $12.50 an hour.

“While the intentions of its supporters were good, this bill is simply a woefully inadequate and flawed vehicle for achieving the goal we all share,” said Gray in a statement. Formally called the Large Retailer Accountability Act of 013 (LRAA), Gray's statement said the bill would have harmed job growth and economic development.

The bill had set up a clash between the mayor, the bill's supporters and the big retail chains that was being watched closely by labor and other cities across the nation. Workers at retailers and fast food restaurants have been holding increasingly large and vocal protests to boost the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Businesses have argued that raising the wage would end up harming workers by reducing jobs.

Wal-Mart had said it would not build three of six planned stores if the D.C. bill became law. The D.C. Council approved it in July on an 8-5 vote, which is one short of a veto-proof majority. Major U.S. retailers, also including Target Corp. and Home Depot Inc., had opposed the bill.

The bill would only affect retailers with stores of 75,000 square feet or larger, at least $1 billion in annual sales and non-unionized workforces.

The bill isn't totally dead, however. Washington, D.C.'s council can override the veto with a two-thirds vote within 30 days, according to The Washington Post. That vote could come as early as Tuesday.

Unemployment and Older Workers

The unemployment rate for workers aged 55 and over was 5 percent in July, according to the most recent data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  That's still higher than historical averages but it's much lower than the overall unemployment rate of 7.4 percent, and below the unemployment rate for any younger group of workers.

Workers aged 55 and over also are the only ones to have seen their ranks grow substantially since 2007, the year the nation went into recession.  There were 31.6 million employed people aged 55 and over in July, according to the BLS, up from 25.9 million in July of 2007.  That's partly demographics:  As baby boomers age, more are becoming part of the 55-plus group.

The unemployment rate for Americans 55 and older is lower than for any other age group the government tracks, and far below the national average.  But if an older workers loses a job, the length of time that person will stay unemployed is typically much longer than for any other age group.

The government is scheduled to release August unemployment numbers on Friday, and forecasters are expecting the economy to have added around 200,000 jobs.

Unemployment, August 2013

U.S. employers added 169,000 jobs in August and much fewer in July than previously thought.  The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate dropped to 7.3%, the lowest in nearly five years.  But it fell because more Americans stopped looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed.  The proportion of Americans working or looking for work fell to its lowest level in 35 years. 

July's job gains were just 104,000, the fewest in more than a year and down from the previous estimate of 162,000.  June's figure was revised to 172,000, from 188,000.  The revisions lowered total hiring over those two months by 74,000.

Employers additionally have added an average of just 148,000 jobs in the past three months, well below the 12-month average of 184,000.

Another concern is that most of the hiring in August was in lower-paying industries such as retail, restaurants and bars, continuing a trend that began earlier this year.  Retailers added 44,000 jobs and hotels, restaurants and bars added 27,000. 

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)

First the history lesson.  The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted September 21, 1996, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. 

Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in June, 2013 thereby allowing same-sex married couples to be recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, and allowing them to receive federal protections such as Social Security, health insurance and retirement savings.  Essentially, same-sex couples who are legally married deserve equal rights to the benefits under Federal law that go to all other married couples. 

If you have followed the DOMA case, you know by now that the ruling will have far-reaching implications.  The recent ruling which mandates that all officially recognized marriages be treated equally under the law, has immediate legal ramifications for the 12 states that already allow same-sex marriages.  Opponents of same-sex marriage are bracing themselves for a wave of legal challenges in the states that do not recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples. 

What does all of this mean for Human Resources and Texas employers?  Well, here in Texas marriage is defined as the "relationship between a man and a woman."   While the Supreme Court removed the federal definition of marriage, it left it to the states to decide whether to honor other states' laws on the matter.  This does not mean that Texas is required to legalize same-sex marriage.  Texas Family Code 6.204 states same-sex marriages performed in other states are void in Texas.  For Texas, there isn't a huge impact immediately.  However, employers should revisit the definition of "spouse" in their benefit plans to ensure that the definition is consistent with the employer's intent, in light of the Windsor decision.  With regard to qualified pensions, plan language and procedures will need to be considered because same-sex spouses have additional rights to federally protected benefits. 

Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R.1406)

(Not to be confused with the Flexibility For Working Families Act)

Over heavy opposition by the Democrats, a hotly debated bill was passed May 8th by House Republicans that will potentially loosen federal overtime laws.  The bill would amend long-standing labor laws (the 75 year old FLSA) by allowing private-sector employers to offer compensatory time off in lieu of time-and-a-half pay for overtime.  (The protections under FLSA were put in place to prevent employers from abusing the system and avoiding paying overtime to workers who put in more than 40 hours per week.)

The supporters of the bill have pitched it as an update to federal law, with the obligatory fluff that "it's about helping working moms and dads, providing the ability to commit time at home," per Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala). 

Under the bill, employees may use their comp time only at the employer's convenience.     If a business is necessarily inflexible when it comes to scheduling time off as the business may relay on a small number of employees for an entire function, then comp time may not be a viable alternative.  For the small employer, the concern may be the potential lost productivity and the additional paperwork for tracking comp time accrued and used.

Yes, the bill has put in provisions to protect against abuse, and only offers the workers a chance to opt for the extra time off if that's what they want.  But I side with the Democrats that such an option is ripe for abuse by unscrupulous employers.  The bill is a potential way for extra work to be imposed on workers with no additional cost to the employer. 

Vicki Shabo is the Director of Work and Family Programs of the non-partisan National Partnership for Women and Families.  Her organization is staunchly opposed to H.R. 1406 and sees it as a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.  "This is a dangerous proposal that pretends to be something that will help working families.  It will take money out of worker's pockets for overtime pay that they otherwise would have received in wages and instead replace it with possibly an empty promise or a mirage of time that's out in front of them that they may never be able to take."

"For the record, there are many ways for Congress to improve both worker pay and work life balance, including raising the minimum wage, instituting paid sick leave, ending discriminatory pay practices, easing the formation of unions and promoting advance notice for worker scheduling,  The House bill ignores what is helpful and embraces what is harmful."  The New York Times, May 10, 2013.

I highly doubt that this bill will go much further. The White House stated in early May that the president would be advised to veto such legislation on the grounds that it would weaken protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Healthcare Reform

The Affordable Health Care Act, a health care law, was passed in 2010.  By 2014 several health reform provisions will come into effect.  Unfortunately, with so many unanswered questions and loopholes, healthcare reform continues to confuse and bewilder employers.  Hopefully the below will provide some guidance.

For fully insured employers with 51+ employees, 2012-2013 health reform provisions include:

1. Limit employee contributions to FSAs.  Starting in 2013, employee salary reduction contributions to health FSA's will be limited to $2,500 per plan year, with indexed increases allowed in future years to adjust for inflation.
2. Employers who file 250 or more employee W-2 forms will be required to report the cost of employee's health benefit coverage on the employee's 2012 W-2 forms that are distributed in January 2013.   This requirement is informational only and does not mean that employees will be taxed on these dollars.
3. Provide written notice about Health Benefit Exchanges (Exchanges).  In late summer or fall (future guidance is expected on complying with this notice requirement), employers must provide written notice to current employees, and going forward, new employees, to inform them of the Exchanges and the circumstances under which they may be eligible for health insurance subsidies.
4. Assess health plan offerings.  Employers should begin assessing their health plan offerings to determine whether they meet the minimum value requirements that will become effective in 2014.  If plans do not meet the requirements, employers will need to explore alternative plan options/or the impact of paying assessments.
5. Requirements for providing the Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) to your employees.  On or after September 23, 2012, group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage are required to provide an SBC that accurately describes the benefit and coverage under the applicable plan or coverage. The final regulations require that the SBC be provided in several instances (upon application, by the first day of coverage if there are any changes, special enrollees, upon renewal, upon request and off-renewal changes.)

2014 Health Reform Provisions.  Although the below provisions will not become effective until 2014, it is important for employers to know what is coming and what action is required!

1. Offer Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC).  Employers will want to consider whether they need to make changes to the cost and quality of the coverage offered to avoid penalties that will apply if that coverage is considered unaffordable or low in value.  Beginning in 2014, employers with 50-plus full-time employees may be subject to a penalty if an employee receives a premium credit or cost-sharing subsidy. The penalty is calculated as follows:
1. Employers not offering coverage.  If an employer does not offer MEC and one or more full-time employees receive a premium credit or cost-sharing subsidy through the Exchange, the penalty is $2,000 per year per full-time worker.  When calculating the penalty, the first 30 full-time workers are subtracted from the payment calculation.
2. Employers Offering Coverage:  If an employer offers MEC and one or more full-time employee receives a premium credit or cost-sharing subsidy through the Exchange, the penalty is $3,000 per employee who receives a premium credit or cost sharing subsidy.
2. An employer-sponsored plan that satisfies the ACA's reform requirements must:
1. Be affordable to the employee (premium must not exceed 9.5 percent of household income.  The IRS, however, has issued a safe-harbor allowing employers to substitute the employee's W-2 income for household income).
2. Provide minimum value, which is at least 60% of the total allowed cost of benefits.

NLRA

Let's talk NLRA for a moment.  There appears to be some lingering confusion.

The federal National Labor Relations Act governs the rights and responsibilities of unions and private employers.  Excluded, with some exceptions, are public employees, independent contractors, employees of Federal, state or local government, etc. 

An employee doesn't have to be a member of a union to be protected under the NLRA as it protects the rights of employees to engage in "concerted activity."   "Concerted activity" takes place when two or more employees take action for their "mutual aid or protection regarding terms and conditions of employment."  This protection can extend to work-related conversations conducted on social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

Many employers prohibit employees discussing compensation or wage levels in the workplace, often communicating that such information is confidential.  These same employers would be surprised to learn that this policy or practice would violate federal labor law.    The National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees. Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA.

A couple of tips:

1. You can't prohibit employees from discussing compensation or benefits, but you can prohibit them from holding such discussions during assigned work hours.
2. Clearly communicate that employees are protected in discussing their own pay as well as pay and benefits of secondary employees if information was obtained through ordinary conversation with the second party. 
3. If information was accessed in a manner that was restricted, such as access to confidential files or other off-limit information, the company can take steps to uphold confidentiality.

Exel and EEOC

An Atlanta jury awarded $500,000 ($25,000 in compensatory damages and $475,000 in punitive damages) in a sex discrimination suit against Exel, Inc., a Westerville, Ohio-based warehouse and distribution company.

According to the EEOC's suit filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, Excel, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to promote a female, Contrice Travis, to an inventory supervisor position in 2008.

During the course of the trial, the EEOC presented evidence that:

1. Male employees were routinely promoted after verbally requesting consideration from open positions while Travis, who was indisputably recognized as the most knowledgeable in inventory control, was denied the inventory supervisor position.
2. Travis's former supervisor testified that when he recommended Travis for the position, the general manager informed him that he would never put a woman in that position.
3. Travis was told that the inventory supervisor position would not be filled.
4. The male selected for the position was told by management and a human resources official that the position would be filled, but that he would be selected only if he kept it a secret.
5. The selectee, Michel Pooler, required training by Travis because he had no inventory experience.

This isn't the first, or last,  potential violation by Exel.

On April 9th of this year, The Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a federal employment discrimination lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Yusuf Sufi, was fired by Exel in May, 2012.   The federal complaint states that Sufi repeatedly asked Exel to provide him with an accommodation under which he could attend his Friday afternoon prayer services.   His employment was ultimately terminated by Exel in May 2012 when he asked for the accommodation a second time.  (It appears that Exel missed the memo.  Both state and federal law requires employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless it creates an undue burden on the company.)

"This is not the first time Exel has discriminated against employees when they have asked for religious accommodation. Our office filed 18 charges of discrimination with the EEOC last month relating to the denial of religious accommodation for Muslim employees who worked at the same facility at which Mr. Sufi worked," said CAIR-Ohio Legal Director Jennifer Nimer. "This pattern of discriminatory behavior continues to be a problem at Exel." 

A massive review and overhaul of Exel's practices, policies, training and personnel needs to occur.   Both management and human resources have failed on a massive level.  Human resources is there to protect employee rights and employer rights.   In the case of Ms. Travis, HR took the side of the wrongdoer and supported a discriminatory selection process.  Human Resources didn't take steps to eliminate discrimination or reduce company liability in either case.

Pending Legislation in Texas

Below is a small sampling of employment-related legislation filed in the Texas Legislature.   If passed and signed into law, these will have a tremendous impact on Texas employers.

HB238/SB237
Prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

HB321
Deferred adjudication may not be used as a factor in employment decisions, housing or issuance of state licenses.

HB667
Puts leave for foster children on same basis as leave for biological or adopted children.

HB950
Incorporates federal law in the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

HB1829
Relating to safe patient handling and movement practices at hospitals and nursing homes.  No retaliation or discrimination toward staff members who refuse to participate in unsafe handling of patients.

HB1188
Relating to limiting the liability of persons who employ persons with criminal convictions.  Tightens up on standards for proving negligent hiring and supervision of employees with prior convictions.

HB494/SB741
Extends to two years the time limit for filing a wage claim with Texas Workforce Commission.

SB340
If TWC finds bad faith on employer's part for failure to pay wages, it "shall" impose a penalty (instead of "may").

Happy Birthday to the Equal Pay Act

50 years ago today the Equal Pay Act was signed by President John F. Kennedy.  While equal pay is the law, the nation still faces gender wage disparities.  In 2012, women generally earned 77 percent of men's wages.  For African-American and Latina women, the number is even lower.    We have made progress, but it's not enough.

The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work.  The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal.  Remember that job descriptions and titles are irrelevant. 

On the front line of this battle is the EEOC who has made enforcing equal pay laws one of its six priorities as outlined in the Strategic Enforcement Plan.

Mother-Friendly Employers

While driving home I heard a radio commercial advertising Mother-Friendly Employers here in Texas.  We've come a long way.  Who would have thought that companies would advertise their support of breastfeeding in the workplace?  Or that a work-site might obtain "Mother-Friendly" designation?

The Texas House of Representatives passed HB 741 in early May.  HB 741 requires public employers, school districts, cities, counties and state agencies, to accommodate employees who need to express breast milk at the work place.  Under current law, working mothers who are hourly employees have federal protections in place for when they need to express milk in the workplace.  (The Federal Health Care Reform Bill, signed in March 2010, contained an amendment to the FLSA requiring employers to give breaks for nursing.)  However, salaried employees have no protections in state or federal law.  House Bill 741 seeks to close this loophole.

New Employment Eligibilty Verification Form I-9

On March 8, 2013 the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) released a revised Form I-9.  Employers are encouraged to begin using the revised form immediately.  However, since some employers may need to update internal processes, USCIS is allowing 60 days from March 8, 2013, during which time employers can continue to use prior versions.  Beginning May 7, 2013 only the new Form I-9, with the revision date of March 8, 2013, may be used.

The new Form I-9 can be found on the USCIS website at www.uscis.gov under the Forms tab.

Update: Affordable Care Act

Federal Government Releases Proposed Rule on 90-day Waiting Period

On March 18, the federal government issued a proposed rule on the 90-day waiting period that would implement the 90-day waiting period limitation and make technical amendments to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) health care coverage requirements.

Under the proposed rule, for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2014, employers that provide a group health plan or health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage cannot require an otherwise eligible employee (or dependent) to wait more than 90 days before coverage becomes effective.

The proposed rule also clarifies that any period before a late or special enrollment by an employee is not a waiting period.  The proposed conforming amendments make changes to existing requirements and other portability provisions that are either no longer applicable or need to be changed because of new market reform protections under ACA.

The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register today, March 21st.  Comments will be due 60 days after publication.

Religious Accommodation

Good Friday is right around the corner.  That day will always serve as a reminder to me of the event forever referred to as The Employee Mutiny of 2011.  In 2011, I upset a few employees by converting the Good Friday Holiday to a floating holiday.  Yes, change is difficult, no matter how small the change.  But with proper communication the employees came to understand that they didn't lose the day, it was just handled a bit differently. 

 

Religious discrimination by employers is expressly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although employers don't have to satisfy an employee's every desire in accommodating his/her religious beliefs, employers are required to make "reasonable accommodations." The most common such accommodation is granting an employee time off to observe a religious holiday.

 

My goal in converting this to a floating holiday was to allow other employees, with different religious beliefs, to have a holiday for their use.  As any organization grows, you want to be able to recognize all religions.  (Another basic step is to modify the vacation/PTO policy to reflect the use of available vacation time for religious holidays not normally recognized by the company.)

 

We live in a beautiful and diverse world!  There's Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, the feasts for Santeria.  We have Hindu holidays, Muslim holidays and even Pagan holidays.  Employers and HR professionals all struggle with how to celebrate them, how to recognize the diversity of these religious beliefs and practices.  With care, communication and understanding, the process is easy!

 

The Importance of Training Managers

What is the cost to an employer when a manager doesn't recognize s/he is acting in a discriminatory manner?   Some managers don't seem to understand what discrimination means, or oftentimes how to recognize it.  Discrimination, and the cost of discrimination, is a problem that companies just can't ignore.

In an EEOC Press release of 1/23/2013 the Dallas-based Fries Restaurant Management will pay a former employee $25,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit.  The employee, Ashanti McShan, is a member of the Christian Pentecostal Church which requires women to wear either skirts or dresses.  During the interview process with Burger King, Ashanti requested a religious accommodation to wear a black skirt versus the black uniform pants.  She was told by the interviewing manager that her accommodation would be granted.  However, during her orientation the store manager advised her she could not wear a skirt and had to leave the store.  McShan attempted to contact higher management, and was unable to speak with anyone.  She was later discharged as a result of the accommodation denial.   Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination.  It requires employers to make reasonable accommodation as long as such does not pose an undue hardship on the organization.   

Florida Courts:  In Hurley v. Kent of Naples, on or about 2005, Patrick Hurley was diagnosed with depression and related mental health symptoms.  The doctor who provided the diagnosis, and the therapist, both advised that he should take medical leave.   The employee advised the company senior officer that he had been diagnosed with depression and needed time off to deal with it.  Having accumulated several weeks of vacation, the employee requested to take most of the year off on vacation.   His request was denied and he was terminated.  Obviously an FMLA suit, alleging interference with FMLA rights and retaliation, followed and Hurley won.  (FMLA entitles eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons.)    The estimated judgement:

• $200,000 for actual monetary losses
• $353,901.85 for front pay
• $200,000 liquidated damages
• $233,109.75 for attorneys' fees
• $21,329.36 for "costs."

Texas courts: In an EEOC press release of December 18, 2012, Dillard's will pay $2 million to settle a class action disability discrimination lawsuit. Dillard's Inc, enforced a maximum-leave policy limiting the amount of health-related leave an employee could take. Additionally, since 2005, Dillard's had a national policy and practice that required employees to disclose the exact nature of their medical conditions to be approved for sick leave. Further, Dillard's terminated a class of employees nationwide for taking sick leave beyond the maximum amount of time allowed. This policy violated the ADA which prohibits employers from making inquiries into the disabilities of employee's unless it is job-related and necessary for the conduct of business.  The second violation was that managers/supervisors (or even HR) did not regularly engage in an interactive process with employees to determine if more leave was allowed under the ADA as an accommodation.  (More information is available on the EEOC website.)  While you can't blame the managers for this company-wide form of discrimination, logically HR should have identified the violation and pushed for policy reform.  But, who's to say that they didn't?

When discharging an employee who just revealed the need to take time off for a medical condition, use caution. Make sure the discharge reason is unrelated to the request.  Remember, firing an employee who is pregnant has legal risk.  Firing an employee because she is pregnant is illegal.

Employers can take steps to prevent discrimination claims by ensuring that all managers are properly trained.  Please invest in training your managers. 

"The best way to begin is to begin." 
                        - Benjamin Franklin.

Concerted Activity

When you think of the term "concerted activity" there is often an automatic assumption that a union, or union activity, is involved.  But that's not always the case.  Section 7 of the NLRA states "Employees shall have the right to self-organize, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities. . . " 

 

Protected concerted activity sometimes has nothing to do with unions at all.   Employees who get together and complain to management about their pay or benefits is engaged in concerted activity.   Concerted activity can include internal complaints of discrimination, discriminatory harassment complaints, etc., all of which is protected by Section 7 of the NLRA.  

Marijuana Legalization and Texas Employers

With both Colorado and Washington passing state laws allowing for the legalization of recreational Marijuana use, Texas employers question the impact to their drug testing and substance abuse policies.   Without going into multiple scenarios or explanations, let's go with a short answer.  These laws have little, if any, effect on your policies/programs. 

 

Remember:

1. Marijuana possession is still unlawful under Texas and federal law. 
2. Texas has no law prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against employees engaged in lawful off-duty conduct.  As such, a Texas employer can take disciplinary action against an employee testing positive for Marijuana usage. 
3. Federal law still criminalizes the possession of Marijuana even in states that have legalized it.

Is Gender Bias Alive And Well?

Gender Bias n. unequal treatment in employment opportunity (such as promotion, pay, benefits and privileges), and the expectations due to attitudes based on the sex of an employee or group of employees.  Gender bias can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes.

 

Gender bias begins at an early age.  From the pink or blue outfits children receive at infancy, the influence of toy selections, to how teachers respond to a child in school, or the books we read them at bedtime. (An April, 2011 study of gender bias in literature examined nearly 6,000 children's books published from 1900 to 2000.  Of those, 57% had a central male character compared with only 31% female protagonists.  Presumably animals of an indeterminate gender led the rest.)  So how do we respond to gender bias in the workplace?

 

First let's understand that gender bias is more subtle than sex discrimination.    Bias occurs because of personal values, perceptions and outdated, traditional views about men and women.  We may encounter gender bias in many forms and degrees.   For example, both men and women tend to view women who express anger more negatively than they view men who express anger.  Even when the members of both sexes use the same words and body language to express that anger.  Gender bias exists where men or women are evaluated or perceived differently depending on whether their actions violate expectations of how they should act or expectations of what behaviors are required for a role they have assumed.  Whether the subject of bias is male or female, the effects of gender bias can be devastating.

 

Beginning in as early as 1982,  state judiciaries began to address gender bias by creating a variety of research committees and task forces.  Since that time, attention around gender bias in the workplace has continued to grow in every industry.

 

Then:

"Gender bias exists in many forms throughout the Massachusetts court system.  Sexist language and behavior are still common, despite an increased understanding that these practices are wrong."  New England Law Review.  Volume 24, Spring 1990.

"The New Mexico Supreme Court is greatly concerned over manifestations of gender bias in the court environment within the State of New Mexico."  "In 1987, the State Bar of New Mexico established The Task Force on Women and the Legal Profession and requested that the Task Force examine the needs of women lawyers, their acceptance by the Bench and Bar in general. . . . . The Final Report, issued November 2, 1990, documented gender bias not only directed toward women lawyers, but affecting female litigants, witnesses, and court employees."

The State of Florida, Gender Bias Study Commission:  Executive Summary, found that "during it's two years of hearing and study, that gender bias -- discrimination based solely on one's sex -- is a reality for far too many people involved in the legal system.  (1990)

In 2011, a team at Yale University asked 127 professors at six U.S. research universities to judge the merits of college graduates.  The graduates were applying for a position as a lab manager before heading to graduate school.  While using identical resumes, of which half were obviously female applicants, the participates were significantly more likely to hire the man, and at a higher salary.  Interestingly enough, the bias was equally strong among both the female and male scientists and did not vary by age, race or discipline. (www.sciencemag.com)

 

Now:

"The Supreme Court's decision on the Walmart case - in which five justices, all male, sided with the company in denying 1.5 million female employees the right to pursue a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit - showed a truly stunning obliviousness to the way gender bias actually plays out in the workplace."  The Daily Beast.  "The Supreme Court's Cluelessness on Gender Bias."  June 22, 2012.

 

MSLGroup currently has a class action lawsuit pending alleging gender pay discrimination.  The $100 million class action lawsuit was filed in February 2011 and represents women who worked at the agency from 2008 until the date of judgement.  Of the 33 total plaintiffs, two are current MSL employees.  One, Sheila McLean, is currently a SVP and a 12-year veteran of the firm.  The lawsuit alleges that MSL paid female professionals less; did not promote women at the same rate as male counterparts; and conducted discriminatory demotions, terminations and reassignments for female staffers during the agency's 2009 reorganization.

 

After all the steps we have taken, all the studies, polls, research papers, etc., gender bias is still alive and well in the workplace.  As an employer, you need to be aware if gender bias exists in your workforce.  Train your employees to identify it, and to acknowledge it.  Secondly, call attention to the bias.  Make a commitment to eliminating it in your workforce.

 

 Title VII prohibits discrimination "because of" an employee's sex. As an employer we may not take adverse action against an employee because of their sex. Sex can not play a role in any aspect of their employment including hiring, transfers, promotions, pay, disciplinary action, suspensions, and discharges. It's also important to understand that while Title VII was originally understood to apply only to women, that is no longer the case. It also prohibits discrimination against men. For example, when a male employee is denied a promotion in favor of a female employee, and the male can prove that the reason was "because of his sex," there may be claim for sex discrimination.