The impact of women in the workforce

Business - Women in Workforce

EMPLOYMENT GENDER ISSUE: SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION

In the United States, women were incorporated into the workforce on a large scale more suddenly than gradually, in conjunction with the national effort to win World War II. Thereafter, the U.S. workforce became increasingly integrated, raising many issues that had never before been addressed by appropriate laws and regulations of the workplace environment. In the last quarter of the 20th century, sexual discrimination and harassment evolved into one of the most important elements of the modern workplace.

Specifically, until the Civil Rights Era, sexual harassment was considered a vocational hazard of working in heavily male-dominated environments without practical redress until the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act). Even then, the recognition of harm arising from unwanted sexual attention in the workplace would be first formally recognized only in 1976 (Williams v. Saxby), under Title VII of the Act (Friedman, 2005). Today, most companies provide mandatory training to all employees, specifically to reduce the incidence of discriminatory behavior against women. The consequences of failing to address the issue prospectively can be significant exposure to corporate liability and substantial damage awards (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

The Concept of Sexual Discrimination in the Workplace:

In principle, the rights protected under the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, applicable federal and state law, and judicial precedent prohibiting sexual discrimination protect males and females alike. Generally, sexual discrimination is defined as different treatment or differential benefits and opportunities based on gender (Friedman, 2005) Sexual discrimination also includes various types of sexual harassment, and in the modern era, also protect individuals against same-sex sexual harassment as well (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). All rights against sexual harassment in the workplace emanate from that portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution referred to as the Equal Protection Clause (Dershowitz, 2002), which, in relevant portion, reads as follows:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005).

Since its first recognition, the concept of sexual harassment has evolved into three specific forms, each with different statutory criteria and legal standards for defining different bases of liability on the part of employers. In that regard, valid sexual harassment recognize violations in the form of (1) maintaining a hostile work environment, (2) quid pro quo, and (3) wrongful termination (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005; Halbert & Ingulli 2008).

Hostile Work Environment:

The concept of the hostile work environment refers to unwelcome exposure to images, conduct, behavior, commentary, and to overheard conversations whose content is considered reasonably offensive to any individual by virtue of gender. At the state level, many states include sexual preference, apparent sexual orientation, as well as cross- gender identity within the protections afforded under federal law predicated on gender (Dershowitz, 2002; Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

In previous eras, women had no choice but to tolerate overtly sexual images, such as in the form of lewd calendars, sexual conversations, and unwelcome sexual attention from male coworkers. Since virtually all positions of authority in the workplace were dominated by males, complaints arising from offensive sexual conduct were typically ignored; even worse, where supervisors and management personnel perpetrated such conduct, women had no recourse but to subject themselves to continual abuse or to resign their positions. In the modern era, employers strictly prohibit any behavior recognized by state and federal law as capable of supporting liability for maintaining a hostile work environment in connection with gender-based sexual issues (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).

Quid Pro Quo:

The concept of quid pro quo ("this for that") refers to any form of trade or offers of consideration in return for sexual favors. Whereas overt offers of this nature are far less frequent than they were in previous eras, indirect or unspoken communications nevertheless constitute sexual harassment in the contemporary professional workplace (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). With respect to sexual harassment claims of the quid pro quo nature, one of the most important elements of modern sexual harassment principles establishes specific vicarious liability on the part of employers for failure on the part of management to redress any complaints of sexual harassment by employees (Friedman, 2005).

In 2003, Courtney Price, an employee of the New York Rangers organization of the NHL sued the Rangers and their parent organization, Madison Square Garden, after she was fired for warning a fellow employee that a public relations executive within the organization had solicited her for sexual favors. In that case, the employer could have avoided liability by following up on the matter as soon as it came to light and disciplining the executive (Sandomir, 20071).

Instead, when the organization learned that the plaintiff had warned her coworkers to stay away from the executive in question and that her warning included repeating the prurient desires expressed to by that individual at a party hosted by the team, the organization fired her, allegedly for her discussions of an inappropriately sexual nature for repeating those comments. Rather than investigating the actual conduct that constituted overt quid pro quo sexual harassment, the Rangers management interviewed all of Price's coworkers (all fellow Rangers City Dancers) about her complaints in connection with which they coerced signed statements against Price (Sandomir, 20072).

A more recent and highly publicized case, also against Madison Square Garden, illustrated the third form of sexual discrimination without any claims predicated on quid pro quo.

Wrongful Termination:

The concept of wrongful termination refers to the firing of an employee based on gender, or in retaliation for filing complaints of sexual harassment or discrimination (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008). In 2007, a $11.6 million verdict was awarded to Anucha Brown-Sanders, a former New York Knicks executive against that organization of the NBA arising from her claims that General Manager Isaiah Thomas had degraded and insulted her because of her gender for a three-year period beginning when he was hired in 2003.

The Knicks' (and Rangers') parent organization, Madison Square Garden, was found liable, separately from Thomas, specifically for failing to respond appropriately after Brown-Sanders had filed formal complaints arising from Thomas' conduct and for firing her shortly thereafter instead (Crouse, 2007). The Anucha Brown Sanders case presented both sexual discrimination and wrongful termination issues wholly apart from any allegations of sexually-motivated quid pro quo, because she was fired by Knicks management after filing formal sexual harassment complaints against Thomas for continually insulting, embarrassing, and degrading her (Crouse, 2007; Finn, 2007).