Mothers need not apply

[defendandprotect]

Mothers need not apply

In most US states, employers can ask at interview if a woman has kids - and discriminate accordingly. Maternal profiling, as it's known, is illegal here, but, as Viv Groskop reports, in reality it is flourishing

Friday February 22, 2008
The Guardian

Kiki Peppard was rejected from 19 job interviews in a row because she was a single mother. Photograph: Lisa Carpenter

The unlikely new face of radical women's activism in the US? Meet Kiki Peppard, a 53-year-old switchboard operator and grandmother from Pennsylvania who claims she is one of millions of victims of "maternal profiling". Defined as "employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children", feminist groups say that maternal profiling has reached epidemic proportions - and is getting worse. In essence, it involves employers building up information on a woman's age, marital status and family commitments to determine whether to hire her, how much to pay her and how much responsibility to give her. Is she likely to have children and need maternity pay? Will she want to work shorter hours?

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/family/story/0,,2259070,00.html

Maternal Profiling ---

[Mythsaje]

1. Corporate "family values" at work. n/t

[bellasgrams]

2. Sounds like it's something that Hillary if pres . would work to

get corrected. She's always worked especially hard for women and children.

[Control-Z]

8. Another reason Hillary

would make the exceptional nominee.

[midnight]

11. I hope so. This is a slippery problem, and needs to be addressed.

The implications are economically devastating and cannot be underscored enough.

[Berry Cool]

3. Nobody has any damn business speculating on a woman's fertility or likely family plans.

This is bullshit.

[SheilaT]

4. I was under the impression

that marital status or children or even childbearing status (such as being of such age) could not legally be used in employment considerations. I recognize that companies break the law all the time, but I was under the distinct impression that such things were not supposed to be allowed.

In 1982 I was hired despite being pregnant at the time of hiring, and it was commented to me that they couldn't refuse to hire me because of the pregnancy.

[spooky3]

6. Pregnancy Discrimination Act

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html

[spooky3]

5. A DU lawyer may want to chime in here but this article is misleading.

While the events described may well occur, it's somewhat incorrect to say that a private US employer with 15+ employees who is covered by Title VII of the CRA of 1964 can legally do what is being described. Unless there are additional state and/or local laws with more requirements, men and women can be asked about children and the answers can be used to discriminate against parents if their answers are treated in the same way--because parental status isn't one of the bases for protected status. But gender is. An employer is not legally permitted to treat women's answers about children different from men's; that constitutes gender discrimination.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

http://www.wetfeet.com/Employer/articles/dont_ask.asp

[seabeyond]

7. the reality is.... it is almost always the woman that takes off work because

of sick child, gotta pick child up at school, cant find sitter for child, child has an appointment. late getting in cause of all kinds of children issues and school.

and.... it is a pain in the butt for employers and the employees that are always picking up the slack. i know this as an employee and an employer

the thing

there is no one to blame. it is a reality that we have to live with.

[Control-Z]

9. So...

Are you saying that it's ok to continue to punishing the women for being the ones responsible for the kids most of the time? I'm not sure I understand our point.

[Mojorabbit]

10. It is a reality

My husband has three employees, one of whom is pregnant. We love her but she is out a lot as she also has a chronic medical condition. In a small office it is really difficult when an employee is not there. He works around it as much as possible but it is not easy. It just is what it is.

[SheilaT]

21. Pregnancy = chronic medical condition.

Is there no one else who thinks there's something wrong with that?

There is this assumption that all employees must perform as if they had no life beyond work: no family, no personal life, nothing at all except work.

Many years ago I realized that I worked to live, not lived to work. It transformed me, and actually made me a better employee/worker, because I had a life beyond the job. Too often people "are the job". That's not what life is about. There truly needs to be a balance, and not in the common terms of "balancing" work and home, but a true equilibrium. And in the end, the personal life should win out. Because, in the end, it's not the employer who will stand beside you at life's difficult moments, but family and friends. In the end, employers will abandon you, complaining that your pregnancy is a "chronic condition": that they are not willing to deal with, that your ill parent or child is none of their concern and that you must show up to work the next day, regardless. To hell with that, I say. Seek the genuine balance, live as a human being, not as a cog in the impersonal machine.

[Mojorabbit]

25. Please reread the post

chronic condition and now pregnant which is exacerbating the chronic condition. In a small office multiple absences by a member of the small staff really do throw things for a loop.
And you are right. I tell my husband that all the time. One should not live only to work. Other countries don't have the same mindset this one does.

[SheilaT]

30. I'm sorry.

I carelessly missed the word also.

[orleans]

27. i think the problem is when employers decide it would be more

beneficial to them to hire males rather than females with children because (as you said) in most cases (and i know i'm generalizing here--but it's true with the people/families i know) women are the ones who deal with the kid issues/come in late/etc.

"it is a reality that we have to live with"

and when we don't get hired because we are women with kids (when a man with kids gets hired) then it becomes a reality we should not have to live with.

[Cerridwen]

12. Amazing, isn't it?

Here we are in the 21st Century, and women for a large portion of their lives, are being treated as though their uterus is an anchor, or perhaps more appropriately, an umbilical cord tied to the house; even if there are not currently (or will never be) any children in it.

So, when exactly is it, that men will be held to the same standards of childcare, home-making, and baby-making, as women are? (Yep, that was a smelling question mark if I've ever seen one (an inside joke just among us "girls").) When exactly will "society" make it possible for women to have and raise healthy and happy children without making sacrifices rarely required of men? (yeah, yeah, another smelly question mark)

Standard disclaimer: the use of the word "men" in the above sentence was used as short-hand and not intended to be all inclusive. I am sure that all the men on DU are fabulous fathers who are wonderful home-makers and rarely "babysit" their own children or "help" out around the house. (If the words in quotation marks are confusing to you, this paper may provide a hint.)

edit to fix link

[tavalon]

14. Yeah, I'm incredibly lucky with my spouse/coparent

the whole house and childcare is shared as equally as two adults can.

But I see the discrimination at work all the time.

[tavalon]

13. Absolutely and they have plausible deniability

A fellow nurse who just went to work elsewhere did not reveal that she was 10 weeks pregnant. Our current charge nurse went off on her but when said charge nurse was away, I gave her kuddos for a smart move. Sure it's against the law to discriminate against the pregnant, but it happens consistently. If they know, you don't get the job.

[SheilaT]

22. Psst. I did get the job, although it was

a quarter century ago, and for a major airline, so that may have made a difference. Thirteen years earlier, at a different airline, I saw the pregnant employee with more seniority laid off while the non-pregnant employee with less seniority kept on. I felt strongly that it was wrong, and protested, mildly, and to no effect.

[Cherchez la Femme]

15. Kick & Recommend

:kick: & :thumbsup:


Sorry, but even though I have nothing other than that to say, I have to get my post count up so I can recommend these excellent posts! :)

[rosesaylavee]

16. If we had affordable child care in this country or

if it were possible to bring the child or children to onsite child care at work, this would be a non-issue. And what about single fathers? Do they experience the same discrimination?

[defendandprotect]

17. Don't know exactly how it worked --- but during WWII they seem to have had quite

a reliable and complete system for childcare out side the home ---
I've heard it was even overnight, at times?

Lots of neighborhood access ---

If I think of it, I'll try to look it up and see what I can find out about how it worked.

[Kat45]

20. Perhaps it was related to there being less mobility then, so that

most people had extended families in the same area. Other family members, whether in older or younger generations, were nearby and available to care for the children of the women who worked. There was more sense of community back then as well. Neighbors tended to know each other, and perhaps some child care was handled that way as well.

[rosesaylavee]

29. I have long thought that the forced moves created

by our corporate culture in the 80s and 90s were extremely disruptive to family's cultural life. Kids are growing up without knowing their grandparents, aunts, uncles and extended family. Family identity is affected and creates more disconnections in the following generations.

I would like to see company transfers around the country and now world to become a thing of history. We were transferred three times and fortunately were able to leave that behind when the fourth transfer was proposed. Yeesh. I hated it.

[defendandprotect]

31. Yes . . . very true . . .

And, I did try for a bit yesterday to look this up --
maybe the library has something on it?

But . . . as I recall discussions of it --- MANY women worked; even older women.

And, as I understood it, there were child care centers where they worked and in their
neighborhoods --
and that it was a per hour charge --- very reasonable.
And that they also took care of newborns ---
and even overnights ---

You're right about neighbors then . . .
I remember my mother telling me that my Irish grandmother breastfed her best friends twins because
her friend was sick and unable to do it!!

[Hekate]

26. Women were needed to work in defense-related industries 24/7. Onsite child care was provided....

It's been awhile since I read up on it, but when industry needed women (since most of the men were away at war), women's needs were accomodated. When WW II ended and the men came marching home, they got their jobs back. That was a good thing. The bad part was that women were laid off wholesale and all accomodation ceased.

By the time I was old enough to look at the photos in LIFE magazine, state-run nursery schools were touted as something only the Soviets did, because the Soviets made their mothers work outside the home. In America, so our social propagandists said, all mothers stayed home and were happy all the time. I was in my 40s before I knew about what the US managed to do during WW II.

The moral of the story is -- It was done in the past in the US and the world didn't come to an end. It could be done again, but apparantly it will take an Act of Congress.

Hekate

[defendandprotect]

32. And the propaganda continues to roll on . . .

ALSO, as I recall the stories, women weren't cooking either ---
there were very active cafeterias where they worked ---
the kids were fed in the day care ---

and there was take out stuff ---
and lots of available cooked foods ---

[SheilaT]

23. I think the essential problem is that there are

practically no single fathers. Oh, yeah, they're out there, but they are so few that they simply do not effectively impact anything, beyond the occasional "feel-good" article about single dads.

I've long (and this goes back a good thirty years) felt that until women are willing to give up custody of their children to fathers, who typically earn more money, there simply won't be the kind of equity there ought to be. Until a significant number of men are actually dealing with the day-to-day realities of single parenthood, NOTHING will change. Not the school day/year, which assumes a stay-at-home parent, not the work place which assumes the worker is not troubled by such trivial details as caring for a sick child (let alone the frivolity of attending a child's 2nd grade play, or 5th grade Christmas party or 8th grade graduation, not to mention soccer games or canceled school because of bad weather)all of which enrages me.

I had the privilege and honor of being a stay-home mom while my two sons were growing up. Personally, I wouldn't have traded it for anything, and I still feel that way even though I'm now in the process of divorce, and I have no career, and relatively low earning power. It made me furious back then that there was no real support for working mothers, whether or not they had an on-site husband. It makes me furious still. No parent should have to choose between job and child, regardless of marital status. I always understood how lucky I was that I didn't have to choose, that I could stay home and not deal with the dual hassles of a job and my children's school/lives/extra-curricular activities.

We absolutely need a more human and humane system that acknowledges EVERYONE, regardless of marital status, children at home, parents who need caring for, whatever. Single people rightfully resent that they're seen as infinitely expendable and able to fill in for those who have children who need to be picked up from school or soccer games to be attended. The essential thing that's overlooked is the co-opting of employee's time and lives, that work should not be the be-all and end-all, that personal life should at the very least be the equal of work life, and maybe be much more important.

[rosesaylavee]

28. "No parent should have to choose between job and child"

Exactly. And the next logical step, if we want our country's children to grow up healthy and productive members of society - they need to have the nurturing and attention of some qualified adult.... either their parent (preferably) or grandparent or a licensed professional skilled in child-rearing. My concern is that there are so many latch-key kids right now who are raising themselves because of the high costs to have an adult supervisor that we are missing an important opportunity to pass along a nurturing and productive culture. Kids need adults to be there for them to know what the right decisions are, to know where the dangers are, to have a sense of stability and safe harbor feeling in their lives.

I was fortunate to be with my son at home until he entered school. After that, my husband was at home with his work and was there for him after he got home after school. It has made the difference I think in how our son interacts with the world. Maybe he would have been just as confident to face different kinds of situations given who he is but I do think that the one-on-one nurturing has made a difference in his life. Glad we were able to do that.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. The real solution here is about a whole cultural shift

to put families ahead of 60 and 70 hour work weeks and other excessive demands. Men, too, ought to be able to put their families first, and do so without snide looks.

When we start to value children and families more than making lots of money for the CEOs and shareholders, then we will have arrived. Until then, this crap is likely to keep happening, even if ever more insidiously.

[Breeze54]

19. I believe it's against federal law to ask those questions in any state.

Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?

* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
* the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
* the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
* Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
* Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
* the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.

Discriminatory Practices
II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws?

Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* recruitment;
* testing;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment.

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

* harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
* retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
* employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
* denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.

Employers are required to post notices to all employees advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation. Such notices must be accessible, as needed, to persons with visual or other disabilities that affect reading.

Note: Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. For information, please contact the EEOC District Office nearest you.
III. What Other Practices Are Discriminatory Under These Laws?

-----------

Title VII

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.

-------

Sex Discrimination

Title VII's broad prohibitions against sex discrimination specifically cover:

* Sexual Harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The "hostile environment" standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.)
* Pregnancy Based Discrimination - Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions.

Additional rights are available to parents and others under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. For information on the FMLA, or to file an FMLA complaint, individuals should contact the nearest office of the Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The Wage and Hour Division is listed in most telephone directories under U.S. Government, Department of Labor or at http://www.dol.gov/esa/public/whd_org.htm.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act

The ADEA's broad ban against age discrimination also specifically prohibits:

* statements or specifications in job notices or advertisements of age preference and limitations. An age limit may only be specified in the rare circumstance where age has been proven to be a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ);
* discrimination on the basis of age by apprenticeship programs, including joint labor-management apprenticeship programs; and
* denial of benefits to older employees. An employer may reduce benefits based on age only if the cost of providing the reduced benefits to older workers is the same as the cost of providing benefits to younger workers.

---------

Equal Pay Act

The EPA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the payment of wages or benefits, where men and women perform work of similar skill, effort, and responsibility for the same employer under similar working conditions.

Note that:

* Employers may not reduce wages of either sex to equalize pay between men and women.
* A violation of the EPA may occur where a different wage was/is paid to a person who worked in the same job before or after an employee of the opposite sex.
* A violation may also occur where a labor union causes the employer to violate the law.

----------

Employers And Other Entities Covered By EEO Laws
IV. Which Employers and Other Entities Are Covered by These Laws?

Title VII and the ADA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

The ADEA covers all private employers with 20 or more employees, state and local governments (including school districts), employment agencies and labor organizations.

The EPA covers all employers who are covered by the Federal Wage and Hour Law (the Fair Labor Standards Act). Virtually all employers are subject to the provisions of this Act.

Title VII, the ADEA, and the EPA also cover the federal government. In addition, the federal government is covered by Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which incorporate the requirements of the ADA. However, different procedures are used for processing complaints of federal discrimination. For more information on how to file a complaint of federal discrimination, contact the EEO office of the federal agency where the alleged discrimination occurred.

The CSRA (not enforced by EEOC) covers most federal agency employees except employees of a government corporation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and as determined by the President, any executive agency or unit thereof, the principal function of which is the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, or the General Accounting Office.
The EEOC'S Charge Processing Procedures

Federal employees or applicants for employment should see the fact sheet about Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.
V. Who Can File a Charge of Discrimination?

* Any individual who believes that his or her employment rights have been violated may file a charge of discrimination with EEOC.
* In addition, an individual, organization, or agency may file a charge on behalf of another person in order to protect the aggrieved person's identity.

VI. How Is a Charge of Discrimination Filed?

* A charge may be filed by mail or in person at the nearest EEOC office. Individuals may consult their local telephone directory (U.S. Government listing) or call 1-800-669-4000 (voice) or 1-800-669-6820 (TTY) to contact the nearest EEOC office for more information on specific procedures for filing a charge.
* Individuals who need an accommodation in order to file a charge (e.g., sign language interpreter, print materials in an accessible format) should inform the EEOC field office so appropriate arrangements can be made.
* Federal employees or applicants for employment should see the fact sheet about Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

VII. What Information Must Be Provided to File a Charge?

* The complaining party's name, address, and telephone number;
* The name, address, and telephone number of the respondent employer, employment agency, or union that is alleged to have discriminated, and number of employees (or union members), if known;
* A short description of the alleged violation (the event that caused the complaining party to believe that his or her rights were violated); and
* The date(s) of the alleged violation(s).
* Federal employees or applicants for employment should see the fact sheet about Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

VIII. What Are the Time Limits for Filing a Charge of Discrimination?

All laws enforced by EEOC, except the Equal Pay Act, require filing a charge with EEOC before a private lawsuit may be filed in court. There are strict time limits within which charges must be filed:

* A charge must be filed with EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation, in order to protect the charging party's rights.
* This 180-day filing deadline is extended to 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law. For ADEA charges, only state laws extend the filing limit to 300 days.
* These time limits do not apply to claims under the Equal Pay Act, because under that Act persons do not have to first file a charge with EEOC in order to have the right to go to court. However, since many EPA claims also raise Title VII sex discrimination issues, it may be advisable to file charges under both laws within the time limits indicated.
* To protect legal rights, it is always best to contact EEOC promptly when discrimination is suspected.
* Federal employees or applicants for employment should see the fact sheet about Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

[Missy Vixen]

24. It's against the law to ask those questions

but there are employers who manage to find a way around it. The last time it happened to me, I knew there'd still be a roof over my head because of my husband, so I looked right at the guy and said, "Those questions are illegal, and I won't answer them." His response was, "You will if you want the job." The guy persisted: "I don't pay medical insurance. I don't pay day care. I don't pay maternity leave."

I got up and left his office, but I realize that there are many women every day that don't have that luxury.

Julie