Source: Stephen Glenn, Simone Melis, Louisa Withers, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), 2009
From the press release:
A new report released by the ITUC for March 8, International Women’s Day, has revealed that the pay gap between men and women worldwide may be much higher than official government figures. The report, “Gender (in)Equality in the Labour Market”, is based on survey results of some 300,000 women and men in 20 countries. It puts the global pay gap at up to 22%, rather than the 16.5% figure taken from official government figures and released by the ITUC on March 8 last year.
The report also confirms previous findings that union membership, and particularly the inclusion of women in collective bargaining agreements, leads to much better incomes for both women and men, as well as better pay for women relative to their male co-workers
video on maternity protection
Source: Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2009
The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the educational arm of the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today released its State of the Workplace report, showing rapid expansion of protections for LGBT workers in the private sector over the past decade. At this time, 35 percent — a total of 175 — of the Fortune 500 businesses have gender identity protections, including 60 of the top 100 Fortune-ranked businesses. In 2000, just three of the Fortune 500 businesses had such protections. Furthermore, 85 percent of the Fortune 500 businesses now have protections based on sexual orientation, compared to 51 percent in 2000.
The report assesses the current state of employment laws and employer policies surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation throughout the United States. For the first time, more than 100 cities and counties now prohibit employment discrimination based on both gender identity and sexual orientation. Already, twelve states and the District of Columbia have protections in place. An additional eight states and 80 cities and counties prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation alone.
– Chartpack (PDF) (PowerPoint)
– Press release
Source: Elizabeth M. Glazer and Zachary A. Kramer, Social Science Electronic Publishing, February 3, 2009
From the abstract:
In her book, Fat Rights: Dilemmas of Difference and Personhood, Professor Anna Kirkland uses fat discrimination as a case study to examine the ways in which we talk about difference in antidiscrimination law. She argues that the proper way to frame questions of difference in antidiscrimination is not in terms of protected traits or categories, but rather in terms of what she calls “logics of personhood.” The logics of personhood are narratives that enable us to talk about which differences matter in a given discrimination case. In other words, they are ways of talking about what happens when people do or do not have rights, as well as whether certain people should be protected by antidiscrimination law. After applying the logics to the case of fat discrimination, Kirkland joins a growing community of scholars seeking to transcend antidiscrimination law’s categories. By identifying in the logics of personhood the presumptions that lay beneath the surface of antidiscrimination law, Kirkland creates an entirely new way to talk about differences among people.
In this Book Review, we extend Professor Kirkland’s discussion of fat plaintiffs to a discussion of transgender plaintiffs. Much like fat plaintiffs, transgender plaintiffs’ only hope of articulating actionable discrimination claims is to map their claims onto existing antidiscrimination norms. As Kirkland demonstrates in Fat Rights, fat plaintiffs must cast themselves as disabled in order to state an actionable discrimination claims. And as we demonstrate in this Book Review, transgender plaintiffs must cast themselves as gender-nonconformists in order to state actionable claims. While both fat and transgender employees may be willing to negotiate their identities to win lawsuits against their discriminatory employers, the purpose of this Book Review is to ask whether they should have to. We use Kirkland’s logics of personhood to demonstrate that fat plaintiffs and transgender plaintiffs share a common frustration with respect to antidiscrimination law’s protected categories, namely, that antidiscrimination law sees both fat people and transgender people differently from how they see themselves. And we argue further that this is a significant harm to a plaintiff’s dignity and that antidiscrimination law should take into consideration such dignitary harms.
Source: Jeannette Huezo, Christina Kasica, Dedrick Muhammad, Amaad Rivera, Inequality and the Common Good, January 15, 2009
In this year’s report, we found that people of color are experiencing a silent economic depression. It’s silent because it’s going unnoticed, unacknowledged, and unaddressed — and yet the evidence is striking.
While the general population has been in recession for one year, people of color have been in recession for five years. By definition, a long-term recession is a depression.
We detail additional evidence that shows the current racial economic inequity, including poverty rates, wealth and assets and economic mobility. While racial barriers did not prevent an African American from becoming president, they continue to impede many people of color from achieving the same economic success as their white counterparts.
Source: Stephanie Bornstein and Julie Weber, Work-family Information for State Legislators, Issue 16, 2008
Workplace discrimination against mothers and others based on their family caregiving responsibilities is a rapidly growing problem. Recently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) responded by issuing new enforcement guidance on caregiver discrimination. State policymakers are beginning to respond, too.
Source: Jennifer S. Hendricks, Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy, Forthcoming
From the abstract:
In September 2008, the D.C. federal court issued a landmark decision holding that discrimination against a transgender person was sex discrimination under Title VII. This decision throws into sharp relief the ongoing debates among supporters of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act about whether the compromise on including protection for gender identity claims. Consideration of ENDA in some form will likely be early on the agenda of the next Congress, especially under a Democratic administration likely to support the bill. This essay proposes an alternative to ENDA that would embrace the theoretical connections between sex, gender, and sexual orientation, with important practical consequences for the relief available to plaintiffs.
Source: Mark C. Weber, Georgia State Univeristy Law Review, Vol. 25, 2009
From the abstract:
This paper asks whether statutory social insurance programs, which provide contributory tax-based income support to people with disabilities, are compatible with the disability rights movement’s ideas. Central to the movement that led to the Americans with Disabilities Act is the insight that physical or mental conditions do not disable; barriers created by the environment or by social attitudes keep persons with physical or mental differences from participating in society as equals.
The conflict between the civil rights approach and insurance seems apparent. A person takes out insurance to deal with tragedy, such as premature death, or damage, such as accidental harm to an automobile or home. Social insurance, for example, the United States Social Security old-age and disability programs, consists of government-run insurance to cover risks of advanced age and disability for which the private market has not provided affordable coverage. But the civil rights approach to disability posits that disability is not a risk, not tragedy, and not a damage or defect. Instead it is a maladaptation of society to human variation.
This paper argues that a justification remains for social insurance under the civil rights approach to disability, and further suggests that expansion of social insurance for disability is both compatible with disability rights principles and supported by wise public policy.
Source: Joanna Grossman, FindLaw, September 30, 2008
In a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion, a federal district judge handed transsexuals a significant victory against employment discrimination. The case was Schroer v. Billington, and the court was the federal district court for the District of Columbia.
Source: Michael Goldfield, WorkingUSA, Vol. 11 no. 3, September 2008
From the abstract:
In this essay, Michael Goldfield examines why questions of race continue to play such a prominent role in contemporary society, particularly in undermining the potential solidarity and strength of the working-class movement, what sustains racist attitudes, practices, and institutions, especially in the face of trends in world economic development that would seem to be undermining them, and what needs to be done to overturn them.
Source: Jody Feder, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, September 5, 2008
This report provides an overview of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and discusses current legal and legislative developments. The ADEA, which prohibits employment discrimination against persons over the age of 40, was enacted “to promote employment of older persons based on their ability rather than age; to prohibit arbitrary age discrimination in employment; [and] to help employers and workers find ways of meeting problems arising from the impact of age on employment.”
The ADEA, which applies to employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies, makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” The statute not only applies to hiring, discharge, and promotion, but also prohibits discrimination in employee benefit plans such as health coverage and pensions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the ADEA.
In addition, the Supreme Court recently handed down a series of decisions involving the ADEA during its 2007-2008 term, including Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn; Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki; Gomez-Perez v. Potter; Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. Each of these cases is discussed below.