Articles Posted in Sex Discrimination

Last month, a state court in New Jersey ruled that a casino’s policy of requiring waitresses to stay below a certain weight was not sex discrimination. The Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa had a policy which prohibited waitresses, called “Borgata Babes,” from gaining more than 7 percent of the amount they weighed when the casino hired them. To enforce this policy, the casino regularly weighed waitresses. To keep their jobs, some waitresses reportedly resorted to taking laxatives before weigh-ins or stopped taking prescription medication.

The court held that this policy did not constitute sex discrimination because the casino applied the weight limit to both men and women. Also, the court reasoned that the waitresses were made aware of the policy when they were hired and they agreed to abide by it.

While this case may have turned out differently if it were brought under Maine law, instead of New Jersey law, the case illustrates the fact that many policies that employers implement seem like they should be illegal even though they are not. One way for workers to fight back against these policies is to form a union. While one waitress may not be able to persuade her employer to change a weight policy, if all waitresses stand together, in the form of a union, they have more power to persuade their employer to make changes to its employment policies.

Last month, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a dentist could discriminate against his dental assistant because he found her irresistibly attractive. The dentist, James Knight, decided to fire his dental assistant, Melissa Nelson, because he was concerned that his attraction for her would lead him to try to have an affair with her if he did not sever ties with her. He admitted that she had done nothing wrong and that she was the best dental assistant he’d ever had. But for his attraction to her, he would not have fired her.

Nelson filed a sex discrimination case against Knight. Her position was pretty straightforward–if she had been a man, Knight wouldn’t have fired her. Thus, she argued, he fired her because of her gender. Rather than adopting this common sense position, the Iowa Supreme Court reasoned that Knight did not fire Nelson because of her gender, but rather, because he found her attractive and she represented a “perceived threat to [his] marriage.” In other words, he fired her because he was concerned that he might begin to sexually harass her if he didn’t.

The Iowa Supreme Court’s reasoning has the potential to significantly curtail protections against discrimination. What could be next? Under the court’s reasoning, an employer could successfully argue that he is afraid he might say something racially insensitive to a black employee because racially insensitive language is part of his normal vocabulary and, so, he had to fire the black employee before that happened. Thankfully, the Iowa Supreme Court does not set the law for the rest of the country.

Yesterday, Senators Snowe and Collins voted with other Republicans in the U.S. Senate to prevent an up-or-down vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, effectively blocking it for now. The Paycheck Fairness Act would make it more difficult for employers to pay women less than men for the same work. It would, among other things, require employers who pay women less than men for the same work to prove that the pay disparity is based on things like education or qualifications. It would also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss their wages with one another, taking away a prime method employers utilize to hide pay discrimination from women.

Laws that have been on the books for decades have not solved the problem of pay discrimination. Women still earn significantly less than men. The Paycheck Fairness Act is designed to enhance current laws to make them more effective.

“I support equal pay for equal work,” Senator Collins said in a statement. “I remain concerned that this particular legislation would unnecessarily expose the small business community to excessive litigation, and impose increased costs and restrictions on businesses that are already struggling to create and maintain jobs in this difficult economic environment.” This is the same argument that the business community raises whenever enhancements to employment discrimination laws are being debated. Collins’ concern that this new law would result in “excessive litigation” is based on pure speculation. One does not have to speculate, however, to see that women who are “struggling” in this “difficult economic environment” deserve more protection from pay discrimination.

The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) has found that Robert Mulligan, the state’s chief justice for administration and management, refused to promote Jane McSweeney to the position of operations and maintenance supervisor with the Plymouth District Court because of her sex. MCAD believed that Mulligan made the decision based on stereotypes about female managers. A three-member hiring panel for the state’s trial court system determined that McSweeney was the top candidate for the job. Mulligan rejected that determination and, instead, hired a man who was third on the hiring panel’s list. MCAD awarded McSweeney $206,527.36 to compensate her for damages she suffered due to Mulligan’s discrimination.

It is not uncommon for women to run into “glass ceilings” when they attempt to gain promotions. If you are a woman and you believe you have run into a glass ceiling at work due to your sex, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer to discuss your rights.

Maine Human Rights Commission et al. v. Coffee Couple LLC et al.

U.S. District for the District Court of Maine Chief Judge John A. Woodcock recently affirmed Magistrate Judge Margaret J. Kravchuk’s decision recommending that judgment be entered against the company, Coffee Couple LLC, as well as against the owners of Coffee Couple, Karen and Calvin Boyle of Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada in connection with their discrimination against a number of Maine employees.

The Maine Human Rights Commission (“MHRC”) Maine Employee Rights Group (“MERG”), and Disability Rights Center (“DRC”), brought suit against Coffee Couple and the Boyles for acts of racial discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, gender discrimination and disability discrimination. Five plaintiffs were represented in this action; Chad T. Hansen of MERG represented two of the Plaintiffs, Jessica Page and Brittany Corliss, on their claims of gender and pregnancy discrimination. The MHRC and the DRC represented the remaining three plaintiffs on their claims of race and disability discrimination.

On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ended a class action gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of over 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees. The representatives of the women of Wal-Mart alleged that Wal-Mart discriminated against women when it made pay and promotion decisions.

The lawyers representing the women of Wal-Mart put forward statistical evidence that proved Wal-Mart treated women less favorably than men. They also put forward evidence of a sexist corporate culture to support their statistics. For instance, Wal-Mart’s most senior human resources official saw nothing wrong with district managers holding their management meetings at Hooters restaurants. Furthermore, during management training at Wal-Mart corporate headquarters, Wal-Mart told managers that the reason so few women have reached senior management at Wal-Mart was because men were “more aggressive” than women–an obviously stereotypical view of women in the workplace. Despite this and other evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lawyers representing the women of Wal-Mart failed to present sufficient evidence to prove class-wide discrimination.

Due to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the women of Wal-Mart will have to bring their own individual gender discrimination lawsuits against Wal-Mart. If you are a woman who worked for Wal-Mart and you believe (a) that you received less pay because of your gender or (b) that you did not receive a promotion to a management position because of your gender, you should immediately contact an experienced Maine employment lawyer in order to protect your rights. Even if these things happened to you years ago, you can still pursue a claim against Wal-Mart.

A federal judge in Washington has approved a settlement that will require Wells Fargo to pay $32 million and reform its employment policies because of a sex discrimination class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of about 3,000 female financial advisors. The lawsuit alleged that Wells Fargo, and its predecessor Wachovia, discriminated against female financial advisors by denying them business opportunities such as distribution of accounts and work assignments.

This lawsuit is a symptom of the larger problem of unequal pay in this country. In the United States, women still earn significantly less than men. In Maine, on average, women earn over $9500 less per year than men.

If you believe that your employer pays you less than men who do the same job you do, you should contact an experienced employment lawyer for advice.