Discrimination in the workforce
...Through the years more and more women entered the work force. Today a dual-income household is not uncommon, especially now that many businesses and organizations have introduced on-site childcare facilities and offer flexible scheduling to allow mothers to hold a career and still tend to their families and household needs. Although their transition into the career world may not have seemed difficult, women have also had to fight for equality. In 1977 women made 59 cents to the dollar that men earned (Mantilla 2004). After years of struggling and lobbying for equal pay, statistics show that in 1999 women were paid an average of 72 cents to the man’s dollar (Mantilla 2004). Along with the pay gap, women also have a harder time acquiring higher-ranking employment positions. Today, women hold only ten percent of the top jobs and leader roles (Mantilla 2004). Many believe women should assume lesser roles such as nurses, teachers, and secretaries while leaving the “more important” roles of doctors, principals, and executives to men. (Mantilla 2004) Although most women’s equality issues were covered under title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, there weren’t any guidelines relating to pregnancy. Expecting women are frequently discriminated against. Many are fired or laid-off when their employers become aware of their situation. In other cases, job offers and availabilities become unavailable once a woman is found to be pregnant. “Most companies do not want to pay several weeks of salary and maternity benefits and when they can keep a full-bodied worker on staff for the same price or less (Johnson 2002).” In 2001 alone, more than 4,200 cases of pregnancy discrimination were reported. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), a 1978 amendment to Title VII, “the definition of sex discrimination was expanded to include pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” (Dessler 2001). This amendment prohibits discriminating against expecting women with regards to hiring, promoting, suspension, or discharge and mandates that maternity leave and pay follow the same guidelines followed in the case of a disability. (Johnson 2002) Weight Discrimination Weight discrimination is also prevalent in the workforce. The physical appearance of an employee or applicant frequently affects the employer’s decisions regarding issues of selection, placement, compensation, promotion, discipline, and discharge (Roehling 2002). In a 1984 study by Kennedy and Homant, “it was found that overweight job applicants were deemed less desirable than convicted felons or people with a history of mental illness” (Roehling 2002). Research has also found that employers tend to stereotype overweight people as “lazy, undisciplined, and stupid” (Mowery & Cheng 2005). It is commonly believed that overweight individuals are an added expense due to the fact that their insurance premiums could rise, special accommodations would need to be purchased, and the absenteeism rate of overweight employee is higher than that of the average size employee. (Roehling 2002) Men and women both suffer from the effects of weight discrimination; however, studies have shown that overweight women are evaluated more negatively than overweight men. In a recent survey by the National Association for Fat Acceptance it was reported “sixty percent of overweight women were not hired for a job because of their weight. Thirty percent believe that they were denied a promotion for the same reason” (Mowery & Cheng 2005). Not only are these women denied positions and promotions; they are paying the price in their paychecks as well. A study submitted to the Journal of Health Economics showed that overweight women made approximately six and a half percent less than their peers (Jones 2002). Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act states that ”all persons within the United States have a right to employment free from discrimination”, it does not specify weight discrimination and has rarely been applied in court cases (Mowery & Cheng 2005). In the case of Frank v. United Airlines, men and women were both victims of discrimination based on weight as they were forced to meet the given standards. Women flight attendants, however, received the most discrimination as their maximum weight was based on weight tables for females with small to medium body frames, and the men’s table was based on a larger body frame. (Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein 2005) In this case Title VII was applied based on evidence that the women were being treated unfairly and because the case could be tried as sex discrimination, even though its real cause was weight discrimination. Most cases regarding weight discrimination are typically argued unsuccessfully as disability discrimination cases. In ninety-eight percent of these cases, the employer emerges victorious (Mowery & Cheng 2005). There is promising news regarding the battle against weight discrimination, “the state of Michigan along with several other cities and counties such as; Howard County, Maryland; Madison, Wisconsin; San Francisco, California; Santa Cruz, California; Urbana, Illinois; and Washington DC have laws that specifically prohibit discrimination in employment based on weight” (Roehling 2002). Disability Discrimination In July of 1990 The Americans With Disabilities Act was signed into law. Under this law, employers are prohibited from discriminating against people with disabilities. It also states that the employer must make “reasonable accommodations” for physical and mental disabilities unless it can be proven that it will cause “undue hardship” on the business (Dessler 2001). Although many people with disabilities are capable and willing to work, they continually face discrimination in the workforce. In a recent Statistics Current Population Survey by the Bureau of Labor it was found that “9.6 percent of people between the ages of 16-64 suffered from a work disability” (Dixon 2003). Approximately twenty-nine and a half percent of these individuals with disabilities were working in comparison to the eighty-two percent of working age Americans who are currently employed. (Dixon 2003) There are many factors that may arise when approaching a situation regarding the employment of people with disabilities. The most common factors are feelings of fear and uneasiness, uncertainty concerning the proper professional conduct and also financial concerns. Many employers feel uncomfortable, as they are apprehensive and unsure of the proper way to handle a working situation in with a person with disabilities. As is the case with many stereotypes, many employers simply lack the knowledge of disabilities and their effects. They are unfamiliar with employment issues pertaining to people with disabilities and are fearful of doing the wrong thing and possibly being reported as discriminatory. With most employers, concerns regarding the cost of accommodating employees are always important and many fear that accommodating the needs of their individual disabilities, such as transportation to and from the jobsite, may prove to be even more costly. (Dixon 2003) Results from a recent Rutgers University study have shown that the cost to accommodate people with disabilities is, in actuality, much less than they had anticipated. “Over sixty percent of the respondents reported that the average cost to accommodate was less than five hundred dollars” (Anonymous 2003). Although many employers are unaware of the benefits of hiring people with disabilities, there are tax incentives available to businesses that prove to be non-discriminatory regarding disabilities. Society is making great strides towards creating an unbiased work environment. As employers are becoming more informed and educated about different disabilities and their effects, these feelings of fear and uneasiness will inevitably subside. Age Discrimination In 1967, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) was put into place in order to better protect workers who were forty years of age or older (Dessler 2001). Under this act, issues regarding the termination of employees and also rejection of applicants based on age are deemed illegal. According to Laurie McCann, senior attorney, AARP, Washington, DC, “when the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was passed, forty-five percent of all job announcements had a maximum age listing stating that people of ages thirty or thirty-five need not apply (Grossman 2003)”. It was stated by the EEOC that, although race discrimination complaints are the most numerous, age discrimination complaints contribute to a total of twenty-three and a half percent of all discrimination cases and growing (Prewitt 2002). Complaints of age discrimination grew twenty-three percent between the years of 1999 and 2001 and are steadily on the rise. “According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by the year of 2010 Americans of ages fifty-five and older will make up thirty-eight percent of the total population, making them the fastest growing segment of the workforce (Fisher 2004).” Although white males file the majority of claims regarding age discrimination, claims filed by women have doubled over the last few years as they are maintaining more desirable jobs and increased incomes (Grossman 2003). With the average age of retirement increasing as rapidly as it has been, it has been said that the baby boomer generation will be affected more so than the other generations as they will be extending their stay in the workforce (Prewitt 2002). “A recent survey by ExecuNet (www.execunet.com) found that eighty-two percent of senior executives consider age discrimination a serious problem in today’s workforce. Ninety-four percent of these managers believe that they were eliminated for consideration of particular jobs due to their age (Fisher 2004).” In hopes to avoid this bias, many job applicants have begun purposely omitting dates from their resumes in order to hide their age. “Others are taking even more radical steps to appear younger by coloring their hair or getting plastic surgery” (Armour 2003). In most cases, this does not help in their search for a job. Employers commonly ignore application...