Why the Election Matters: Employment Law

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Four women filed suit against computer retailer Dell Inc. in federal court today, alleging a widespread pattern of gender and age discrimination.

The former managers, Mildred Chapman, Angela Hopkins, Julia Mahaffey and Bethany Riches, accuse the company of paying men higher wages for equal work and failing to fairly promote women to higher positions. Dell denied the accusations.
The lawsuit noted that there are no women in the company's highest tier of executives. ... Chapman, 59, also accused the company of disproportionately laying off workers older than 40 after it began cutting 9,000 jobs last year.

The four plaintiffs will ask the court to permit the suit to proceed as a class action. [more ...]

Putting aside the factual dispute, which is best resolved by a jury that hears all the relevant evidence, this lawsuit should remind us that when John McCain and his backers talk about "frivolous lawsuits," they mean lawsuits filed by individuals against businesses -- particularly lawsuits filed by employees. As president, McCain would continue the Republican tradition of resisting full and effective implementation of employment discrimination laws.

Republicans are fiercely opposed to class action litigation, the most efficient way for victims of widespread illegal practices to obtain compensation for their injuries. McCain and his fellow Republicans oppose legislation like the Fair Pay Restoration Act that would repair the damage inflicted upon civil rights laws by conservative judges. McCain would continue the Republican practice of appointing judges who feel a need to protect businesses from juries that may be sympathetic to discrimination victims.

Employment discrimination remains a serious problem, in part because employers have learned that federal courts will usually protect them from a trial. McCain would carry on that tradition. Improving the laws and the courts will require an Obama presidency.

< Obama Infomercial Thread | Wednesday Evening Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why the Election Matters: Employment Law | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

and what causes you to think this? (none / 0) (#1)
by cpinva on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 08:55:20 PM EST

Improving the laws and the courts will require an Obama presidency.

if sen. obama's past legislative actions are any indicator of his probable future course, should he be elected president, i remain unconvinced that his will be the second coming of the warren court.

Clear difference. (none / 0) (#2)
by TChris on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:07:36 PM EST

Because Obama will sign legislation that McCain would veto, and because Obama isn't likely to raid the Federalist Society for judicial appointments, as would McCain.


he also voted for (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by cpinva on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:29:41 AM EST

FISA. he's so different how, exactly? please TChris, i give you credit for being smarter than this post makes you appear, do me the same courtesy.

nothing in sen. obama's background would lead any thinking person to anticipate a sudden "golden age of equality", should he be elected, rather than sen. mccain.

you also work on the predicate assumption that a democratic house and senate will pass this legislation. i base my hesitation to accept this on the less than stellar accomplishments of the past two years of democratic congressional majorities.

i suppose we'll see if my cynicism, or your polyanna outlook is the correct one.

i do hope i'm wrong.


And we know this how? (none / 0) (#4)
by nycstray on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:24:35 PM EST

He tends to forget women aren't treated equally. And I'd put good money on the fact he'll surround himself with good ol' boys and we'll be off to the wayside yet again.


Actually (none / 0) (#5)
by TChris on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:34:43 PM EST

Obama supports the Fair Pay Restoration Act, McCain doesn't. Click the link in the post for Obama's detailed position.


: Along with every other Dem (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by nycstray on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:46:25 PM EST

I don't trust him on women's issues. He consistently forgot to mention women and still does. I just pointed it out yesterday in another one of his statements. It was noticeable during the debates. He also hasn't said diddly squat on the current change HHS is trying to make re BC and abortion even though Hillary has been. The very least he could do is support her on this while he has everyone's attention.
And then there's the fact he totally blew us off and courted the religious vote. Guess he figured we had no where else to go . . . .
Action works for me. So I'll just play wait and see with him on women's issues. I've got time . . .

The corporation I worked for for a long (none / 0) (#3)
by Teresa on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:17:33 PM EST

time did the same thing. I worked in finance and saw all the wages. Our female managers (this was a retail corp) made 15-20,000 less than the men. It was really hard not to tell them.

This is an extremely (none / 0) (#7)
by NYShooter on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 11:35:11 PM EST

complicated issue; it does not lend itself to be adjudicated by sound bites and quotes taken out of context.

I was a top tier corporate executive (retired, now an entrepreneur with my son.) I am also a huge Hillary Clinton supporter. In my experience, managers have too much pressure put on them to produce results for them to discriminate against certain groups simply out of personal piqué.

While I don't believe there's always two sides to every story, in this case, there are.

We must study this problem, pay inequality, with a cold eye of reason and reality.

My fear is that emotion, politics, and pandering will result in a solution far worse than the problem.

hardly out of personal (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by cpinva on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 01:39:38 AM EST

pique', but hard economics.

with respect to both age and gender
discrimination, it all boils down to payroll.

if i can replace my older, highly compensated staff with younger, lower compensated staff, performing the same job, it's kind of a no-brainer. even if i lose some efficiencies in the process, the decrease in labor cost more than makes up for it. i have a net increase in net income.

the same goes for gender pay inequity.

the question isn't if it happens, it does all the time, it's how to provide a sufficient incentive for employer's to not engage in it. in a capitalist system, the only way to accomplish that is by making it more expensive for them to discriminate, than the economic rewards of said discrimination.


Good start... (none / 0) (#11)
by NYShooter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:16:30 AM EST

But gender discrimination isn't exactly equivalent to age discrimination. Age discrimination, at least, makes sense in that a case could be made that older workers are less productive, less amenable to change, and get sick more often. In that case, it's not "equal pay for equal work," rather it's the government mandating that a company sacrifice its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders (or owners) to perform a social cause.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it's an issue that our society has to decide.

Gender discrimination is a bit more complicated.


: you make the standard, (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by cpinva on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:27:47 AM EST

and consistently disproven point, that i've seen in several class-action cases.

Age discrimination, at least, makes sense in that a case could be made that older workers are less productive, less amenable to change, and get sick more often
in fact, older workers tend to be more productive than younger workers; they've learned all the shortcuts to getting the job done efficiently.
there's little statistical evidence to support the claim that they lose more time from work due to illness than their younger counterparts, it's roughly equal, just for different reasons.
again, follow the money.

: Well (none / 0) (#18)
by Steve M on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:30:41 AM EST

Pregnancy discrimination is another area in which discrimination can be in the employer's economic interests. You can have the greatest employee in the world, but if they're on extended leave, they're doing nothing for you. The marketplace won't fix that.
And gender discrimination, of course, often relates closely to pregnancy discrimination. I've seen male managers who have no problem accepting that a woman can do the work just as well as a man, but still make the judgment before hiring a woman of "how likely is she to get pregnant soon and want to take leave?" And depending on the circumstances, it might even be economically rational for an employer to hire a man over a better-qualified woman if pregnancy is expected to keep the woman off the job in the near future.

: No, it's really the same. (none / 0) (#19)
by TChris on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 11:10:40 AM EST

Anti-discrimination laws are designed to make employers base choices on individual circumstances rather than prejudices and stereotypes. Sure, some workers become less productive and less flexible as they get older, but some don't. Age discrimination laws protect older workers who can still do the job from being judged on the basis of a stereotype. It is equally true that some women will get pregnant and leave the workforce, which is one reason employers have historically been reluctant to hire women for positions that require a significant investment in training. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is designed to make employers base judgments on the individual circumstances of a particular female worker rather than stereotypes about how women will function in the workforce. The same principle applies to other laws protecting categories of workers from discrimination.

I take it nobody's ever told you (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by nycstray on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:00:12 AM EST

"You make a fine salary for a woman.". And the man that delivered that little sound bite was the one who's butt you saved daily while your job kept expanding because you were just that good.

There's a reason my "co-workers" have fur and 4 legs. It's called equal pay for equal work. The only way I can be assured I'm getting equal pay is if I work for myself. BTW, my co-workers don't get paid. They sleep on the job ;)


As I said (none / 0) (#12)
by NYShooter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:24:54 AM EST

it's more complicated than that.

If you're saying there are stupid employers who pay women less then men just because they just don't like women, then, of course, that's wrong. It's also stupid in the sense that they will be uncompetitative in the marketplace by not having the best emplyees available, and they will fail eventually.

And, in that narrow case, I have no problem with laws that would make that illegal.

My warning is that the marketplace is too competative to permit stupid managers making self destructive decisions like that, but that the government, if it allows the topic to become politicized, will make it even worse.


Many times though, the pay discrimination (none / 0) (#13)
by nycstray on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 02:41:01 AM EST

isn't common knowledge. Not all my bosses said stuff as obvious as that. And that was a major employer and very competitive.

The problem is the time frame in which you have to find out you are underpaid etc. It's not like it's posted on the office doors. If you look at the stats, women are entering the work force more equally in some areas, but it starts falling off after a few years. It doesn't necessarily hurt the company's performance. Nothing "wrong" with having a bunch of women working twice as hard as men for less when it comes to work efficiency.

Bottom line, we haven't come a long way baby. Prime example, Clinton v Obama.


Clinton vs Obama (none / 0) (#14)
by NYShooter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:06:01 AM EST

NOW you've got my attention....lol

Look, maybe it's just me, but I believe that in the end there are no real disagreements.
Of course, what you are saying is true, and that it does take place. And in those cases where the veracity of your claim is indisputable, it must be rooted out and corrected.

But I also believe that you understand the complexity of the issue. My only point is, real discrimination, of any sort, is an affront to a decent society, and an albatross around the neck of any company that has its long term best interest at heart.

Unfortunately, I've been around long enough to witness the best of intentions morph into some kind of mutation that satisfies no one.
It takes smart people to solve difficult problems, and I think you'll agree with me, they haven't been much on display in the recent pass.

The country is spinning into an abyss at an accelerating rate, and no one, and I mean no one, knows where the bottom is.

Oh, and they were the very smart people, and the politicians, that get us into this mess in the first place.

And they're still in charge.


I do agree on the complexity (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by nycstray on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 03:52:46 AM EST

it's the basics that p!ss me off ;) I guess I also feel a lot of frustration at where we're at. I can only think of 2 positions I ever held where I was equal and knew it. This election brought a lot of that to the top, again. The volume was pretty damn loud.

We are in one heck of a mess and spinning into an abyss in so many areas it's frightening. I'm in self preservation mode at the moment, lol!~ It's not just the economy, it's our food supply and everything else. Oy.

Here's hoping my niece sees the equality in her lifetime. Me, I'll keep soldiering on with the furry crew in tow ;)


: End, with a happy note (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by NYShooter on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:20:43 AM EST

One of the businesses my son and I are involved in is blacktop & sealing, you know, hard, black, icky, gooey, stinky blacktop. One of our part time employees was a young girl who worked for us during her summer vacation from college, where she was studying marine biology. After graduation she came to see me, and after congratulating her, I asked her where she was going to work. Well, she asked if she could work for us, as she loved the work, and preferred it to anything the marine biology firms offered.
I said to her, "you know I would love to have you full-time, (she was a very serious, hard working and conscientious worker) but biology would present a future whereby you could rise up and advance over time." I said, "Working on a crew here is no future for someone like you. You would have to go into management, and would the hurly burly, macho, tough guys who make up the work force take instructions from a woman? Many of the workers are Latino and have a thing about females. She said, "just put me to work and let's see what happens."
Today, "Debbie" is in charge of our entire field operation, from New York to Miami, and the highest paid employee at Pro-Seal Asphalt Mgm't, Inc.
Epilogue: They say "no one is irreplaceable," but I would kill myself if Debbie ever left me.
p.s. Please don't tell her that. :) lol