Comments on: There’s No “Mother’s Day” At Work http://thethinpinkline.com/2009/07/06/there%e2%80%99s-no-%e2%80%9cmother%e2%80%99s-day%e2%80%9d-at-work/ Four Women For Women Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:34:40 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Carol Frohlinger http://thethinpinkline.com/2009/07/06/there%e2%80%99s-no-%e2%80%9cmother%e2%80%99s-day%e2%80%9d-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-14080 Carol Frohlinger Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:19:42 +0000 http://thethinpinkline.com/?p=2658#comment-14080 @Mark - thank you for your very articulate comment. I only wish that the law could prevent the illegal employment decisions that happen every day! Women who believe their rights under Title VII or state employment laws have been violated should certainly consult an attorney to review their legal options. It has been my experience, however, that too often such illegal behavior is very difficult to prove and it is a costly and emotionally wearing experience. @Mark – thank you for your very articulate comment. I only wish that the law could prevent the illegal employment decisions that happen every day!

Women who believe their rights under Title VII or state employment laws have been violated should certainly consult an attorney to review their legal options. It has been my experience, however, that too often such illegal behavior is very difficult to prove and it is a costly and emotionally wearing experience.

]]> By: Mark Walters http://thethinpinkline.com/2009/07/06/there%e2%80%99s-no-%e2%80%9cmother%e2%80%99s-day%e2%80%9d-at-work/comment-page-1/#comment-14079 Mark Walters Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:18:58 +0000 http://thethinpinkline.com/?p=2658#comment-14079 It is true that working moms get paid for working and not being moms, however, this article highlights classic fact patterns of family caregiver discrimination, which is illegal under Title VII and many state anti-discrimination laws. This kind of discrimination occurs when employers hold and act upon stereotypical beliefs that working moms cannot be good mothers and good employees because their family responsibilities will trump their work duties. These beliefs can result adverse employment decisions—sometimes called the maternal wall or the mommy track—that limit the employment opportunities of working moms. Adverse employment actions based on gender stereotypes, even if well intended violate the laws that prohibit gender discrimination. For example, an employer might deny a promotion on the good faith assumption that their working mom employee would not want to relocate to another city, even if it would mean a promotion. Another common example is the employer that delays a promotion to a working mom when they return from maternity leave because the new mom has to "prove herself" now that she has added family responsibilities. This rarely (if ever) happens to new dads. Employment decisions based on stereotypes like this are illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and most state anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately, however, this has occurred too frequently over the years. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged in a 2003 decision that the "gender stereotype . . . that women's family duties trump those of the workplace . . . has historically produced discrimination in the hiring and promotion of women." The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a new Best Practices Guidance Paper on April 22, 2009, that encouraged employers to develop polices that describe the common stereotypes or biases about caregivers that may result in unlawful conduct. You can find this EEOC guidance paper at this link: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-22-09.html It is true that working moms get paid for working and not being moms, however, this article highlights classic fact patterns of family caregiver discrimination, which is illegal under Title VII and many state anti-discrimination laws.

This kind of discrimination occurs when employers hold and act upon stereotypical beliefs that working moms cannot be good mothers and good employees because their family responsibilities will trump their work duties. These beliefs can result adverse employment decisions—sometimes called the maternal wall or the mommy track—that limit the employment opportunities of working moms.

Adverse employment actions based on gender stereotypes, even if well intended violate the laws that prohibit gender discrimination. For example, an employer might deny a promotion on the good faith assumption that their working mom employee would not want to relocate to another city, even if it would mean a promotion. Another common example is the employer that delays a promotion to a working mom when they return from maternity leave because the new mom has to “prove herself” now that she has added family responsibilities. This rarely (if ever) happens to new dads.

Employment decisions based on stereotypes like this are illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and most state anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately, however, this has occurred too frequently over the years. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged in a 2003 decision that the “gender stereotype . . . that women’s family duties trump those of the workplace . . . has historically produced discrimination in the hiring and promotion of women.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a new Best Practices Guidance Paper on April 22, 2009, that encouraged employers to develop polices that describe the common stereotypes or biases about caregivers that may result in unlawful conduct. You can find this EEOC guidance paper at this link: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-22-09.html

]]>