Deardorff's Pregnancy Discrimination And The American Worker

In today’s economy, it is a hard fact that many women will have to enter the workforce. In her article for The Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t have it All”, Anne-Marie Slaughter examines the difficulties faced by women who either have children or would someday like to do so. Having given up on the task of holding a high powered government position while being the mother of a teenager, her kairotic moment, the author discusses the changes that would be necessary in order for women to find a real work-life balance. Although Slaughter 's target audience is primarily women who seek high powered positions, the article contains ample information that should appeal to both men who seek to balance the needs of a growing family with their work responsibilities, as well as workplace policy makers who could help usher in the necessary changes. Her goal in sharing her experiences is to argue that women can succeed at the very top level of their organizations, “But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured” (Slaughter).

This research also shows that when women take these leaves of absences, it will impact their career by decreasing their earnings in the long run (Patten, 2015). This is seen as an indirect form of discrimination in the workplace because even though an employer is not neglecting a woman for simply being a woman, they still are the ones who are expected to leave their occupation in order to care for their family and that creates much more significant long-term impacts on their careers than on a man’s career. This is quite unfortunate because as stated earlier, women are becoming a much larger force in high-paying jobs that are typically overrun and controlled by men, for instance, professional and managerial positions. However, research still shows that women

In recent history, the majority of the movement regarding the gender gap in the workplace has been in response to the opportunity available to males versus female. Today however, that debate topic has shifted to explain why opportunity does not grantee professional success and what role society plays on that restriction. It was already said by Sandberg that a difference in biology affects the choices individuals make, and that issue alone is independent from any social construct that would usually affect choices. Slaughter outlines one of these societal flaws is in the “unspoken rules” or norms of hiring and firing in Washington. She states, “to admit to, much less act on, maternal longings would have been fatal to their careers.” Often a euphemism for being fired is saying that one is leaving to focus on homemaking. It seems to be implied by the authors that often, merely having a family that deserves time and

The concept of the FMLA was set in motion through debates over a California law mandating maternity leave for childbirth, which is discussed in greater detail in the “Government” section of this paper. After a federal district court struck down the law in 1984 as sex discrimination against men, Congressman Howard Berman, a Democrat from California, sought help from the National Partnership for Women & Families, then the Women's Legal Defense Fund, in framing a bill that would require employers to grant maternity leave (115). Instead, the National Partnership submitted the idea of a broader leave that would not only meet the needs of new mothers, but address a wider range of work/family conflicts affecting both women and men (116).

Besides the previous reasons stated, one of the most common problems for women in the workplace is being discriminated against due to pregnancy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated seeing a 65 percent increase in complaints about discrimination against pregnant women in the workplace between 1992 and 2007 (Chaney, 2008). Example of pregnancy discrimination are refusing to hire a pregnant woman, firing or demoting a pregnant women, denying a woman the same or similar job when she returns, or treating a pregnant employee differently than other temporarily disabled employees. Many women get laid off and even fired from their jobs because they get pregnant. Often male bosses will give excuses for these situations saying that the woman is unable to do their job or that their missing attendance will be a problem due to their pregnancy. Some bosses simply give the reason that women will not be as interested in their job once the child is born, which is an outrageous assumption to make.

It has been argued that maternity leave is not only harmful to business but also to women themselves, and that it can be a burden on businesses so they may think twice about employing women. (7) Where leave is given, whether paid or unpaid, businesses have to fill the position vacated by the parents and this in itself creates additional work and cost for employers who have to pay for job advertisements, background checks and time for interviews. They are also faced with the cost of training the temporary

In a still predominantly men-orientated world, male lawyers seem to resent the time that women have off for maternity leave, many complaining of what they perceive as holding the fort after a woman’s decision to become pregnant. Many women complain that on their return to the legal profession, they are expected to work at twice the pace to make up for the time off, which puts inordinate pressure on them when they are trying to develop a sensible working pattern and balance.”

The Johnson Controls, Inc. policy states that women were first required to sign a statement, then the policy was revised to limit the positions in which child-bearing women could work. Without examining the policy in its entirety, it is difficult to determine if this policy does constitute discrimination. On the surface, it seems to be discriminatory in that women are in a unique position because of their capacity to become pregnant whereas men, obviously, do not possess that same ability.

With the rise of the modern age economic survival has become difficult for families based on a single income. This economic need along with modern attitudes toward gender equality has resulted in women being represented in the workforce in greater numbers. However, until the 1960’s women faced severe discrimination when trying to enter and maintain a position in the workforce. Often qualified women would be passed over for men with less experience and education. Employers were fearful that women were too emotional and were not equipped to handle the stress of the work environment. Also driving the decision to not hire or promote women was the concern over the additional health care expenses and leave time pregnant

Childfree women are also being offered more career promotions than women with children. The pay gap might also increase with age because women hit the infamous “glass ceiling” at the top of their professions. The “glass ceiling” is the highest level they can obtain in their careers’. In supporting my statement, many women hit the “maternal wall” of discrimination before they ever reach the “glass ceiling.” Sarah Glazer provides a perfect example, “A civil engineer in Pennsylvania was awarded $3 million in a lawsuit because she was passed over a promotion after the birth of her son. She testified that the president of the company asked her if she wanted a career here of if she wanted to have babies” (Glazer 36). The president of this particular company obviously came to the assumption that her level of production in her chosen profession would decrease due to raising her child.

The case of Kathryn Mc Neil deals with the issue of separation in the workplace regarding the nonperformance of a single mother whose work was suffering because of the tremendous additional burden of raising a child. The case was written in 1994 but in the intervening years significant decisions have been made by the law (in the US) protecting the rights of the single mother. The debate is no longer exclusively about professionalism versus corporate responsibility but the new phenomenon of a third gender in the workplace.

“There are many unreasonable prejudices against women, especially in the workplace. Not only that, there are also obstacles that obstruct a women’s right to choose. For example, the fact that many companies don’t let women return if they have to take time off because they are having a baby. Or the face that the fathers are often not granted leave at all,” was one person’s answer to this question. This person raised a very important point in that fathers are often not granted leave if their wife has a child. Feminism strives for equality between men and women, so if those feminist views were achieved within the workplace, it would not only benefit women, but also men. Men working in nursing or childcare would be taken more seriously with that equality in place. It is for the respect of men and women around different workplaces that feminism is a fair cause to

Sex-based wage discrimination is against the law, as is stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The same Act prohibits pregnancy discrimination and states that employers cannot refuse to employ a woman because of pregnancy or terminate her, force her to go on leave at an arbitrary point during pregnancy or penalize her because of pregnancy in reinstatement rights credit for previous service, and accumulated seniority. Family responsibilities typically still fall more heavily on women, and neither society nor employers have found good ways to mesh those with job demands. Employers see parental leaves as a lack of commitment to the job and therefore more likely not to give promotions to the female workers (Kleiner & Kuta, 2001:45-47). Women can get equal treatment, but mostly when they behave like traditional men and leave the primary family responsibilities at home. Many women choose to take time off or to work part-time to be with their children rather than stay on the job and mainly because of lack of day care and flexible job options (Kleiner & Kuta, 2001:45-47). Some women drop out of work force for as long as two or three years,

Researchers have proposed a variety of explanations for systematic gender inequality in the workplace. Cultural benefits, the actions of male employees, the actions of the female employees, and the actions of the employer can contribute to intentional or unintentional gender discrimination (Ngo, Foley, Wong, & Loi, 2003). It has also been mentioned that women make less money because their work environment is generally safer than the stereotypical male work environment; childcare, cashiers, and secretary positions as opposed to firefighters, truck drivers and construction workers (Parcheta, Kaifi, & Khanfar, 2013). Perhaps the most dominant reasoning for women receiving less pay is the carrying over of biological roles into the workplace. Female employees often take time off to have a family, take care of a family, and are the primary caregiver of said family.

A second key issue is the hiring process. Many companies prefer to hire men over women for a positionregardless of their education or experience. Some reasons this may be is because most females have to balance work and family duties which may be a huge barrier in helping advancement in an organization, so an employer may prefer to hire a man who will not come with the baggage of children or the issue of balancing work and family duties. During an interview some women are not hired because they cannot be taken seriously because some may wear too much make-up or their pants suit or skirt may be too tight. Women that are pregnant are also sometimes not considered for a position because the manager may worry about the women wanting time off work on maternity leave. This may not be a direct financial concern about paying women while on maternity leave. It's more about the cost of replacing and training someone to cover their role while they are off.