LAWSUITS BY WORKING MOTHERS

Discrimination against women based on pregnancy or child care duties is nothing new in the American workplace. And as the numbers of women who work has steadily grown, so too have the incidence rates and negative impacts of this type of gender bias, an often subtle form of discrimination that has long been difficult to prove.

Now, federal authorities are attacking the mistreatment of working mothers and other caregivers via new guidelines that issued May 23. Citing growing conflicts between work and family, the EEOC hopes to reduce this insidious form of discrimination. The guidelines offer instruction on how to analyze evidence. They identify when and how beliefs about traditional social roles can transgress existing laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace.

The EEOC refers to this form of illegal bias as caregiver discrimination. Its effects sometimes result in what the Commission calls a “maternal wall” that can limit employment opportunities. Caregiver bias cases generally revolve around a woman’s need to both work and act as primary caregiver to her family. Though bias against men in this area is equally illegal, there is no denying that women are the primary intended beneficiaries of the EEOC initiative. They are far more likely to be affected by childcare or other family duties and, in consequence, often deal with a real or imagined perception that they are less committed to work than male counterparts.

The EEOC’s new guidelines offer examples of evidence the Commission sees as indicative of illegal discrimination. As it investigates caregiver bias claims going forward, the EEOC will evaluate things like whether an employer asked female job applicants if they were married or had young kids; whether derogatory or stereotypical comments were made about pregnant women or working mothers; and whether the treatment of women became less favorable after pregnancy was disclosed, among other things.

Most important to the EEOC, it appears, is the problem wrought by both intentional and unintentional expectations that employers may harbor. Noting that stereotypes about childcare or its impact on an employee’s commitment to work are sometimes benevolent, the Commission makes clear they are nonetheless illegal. “Of course,” the EEOC writes, “adverse actions that are based on sex stereotyping violate [the law] even if the employer is not acting out of hostility.”

So what is an employer to do? For starters, companies of all sizes need to know how ideas about gender roles can impact work decisions, regardless which gender may make them. Hiring, promotion, parental leave, and other areas should be analyzed for bias. Doing this may mean taking hard looks at both the attitudes of managers and how the discretion they wield impacts their decisions.

Companies should also create complaint and investigative procedures that offer employees a place to turn when they feel slighted at work. This type of system coupled with anti-discrimination training can go a long way to heading off lawsuits before they get out of your hands and into a judge’s.

By Attorney Jack K. Merrill - Framingham, MA Employment Lawyer

Attorney Jack K. Merrill is a Massachusetts employment lawyer and specializes in employment law and civil litigation. He counsels small businesses and individuals on discrimination cases and other employment related legal matters. 

With law offices in Framingham, MA and Milford, MA, our employment law lawyers provide legal services to individuals and businesses throughout the Boston metro west and Worcester county region including Ashland, Dedham, Framingham, Franklin, Hopkinton, Maynard, Marlborough, Milford, Natick, Needham, Newton, Shrewsbury, Sudbury, Waltham, and Worcester, Massachusetts.