On National Equal Pay Day, President Obama is taking action to fight the gender wage gap among federal contractors. Today, he signed an executive order requiring the companies to publish their wage data by gender and race, thus pushing them to adhere to laws on equal pay, al Jazeera America reports."Penalizing pay secrecy is an important step that sends a strong message," says a VP for the National Women's Law Center.

The move doesn't apply to private companies, though a Senate vote today could help change that. But the bill in question has twice failed to get through Congress, al Jazeera notes. Meanwhile, a second executive order today bars federal contractors from retaliating against workers who exchange information on their salaries, theWashington Post notes. "Pay inequity is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange women, their families, and our economy as a whole," says Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett

source: http://www.newser.com/story/184992/obama-moves-to-shrink-gender-wage-divide.html

WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Gender inequality continues to be a worldwide issue that women face daily in many aspects of their life. More recently seen is the Hobby Lobby case, where women’s reproductive rights were dismissed over the religious rights of companies. On June 30, the Hobby Lobby case ruled “that the owners of closely-held, profit-making corporations cannot be forced under the Affordable Care Act to provide their employees with certain kinds of contraceptives that offend their religious beliefs.” Many have fought that the outcome of this case is further discrimination on the basis of gender and a violation of women’s rights. Laws continue to regard women and girls as second class citizens.

Below is a list of U.S. Supreme Court cases involving gender discrimination and women's rights, including links to the full text of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

    •       Cleveland Bd. of Ed. V. LaFleur (1974)
Found that Ohio public school mandatory maternity leave rules for pregnant teachers violate constitutional guarantees of due process.

    •       Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)
Found that a claim of "hostile environment" sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that may be brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    •       Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987)
The Court decides that a county transportation agency appropriately took into account an employee's sex as one factor in determining whether she should be promoted.

    •       Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1987)
Held that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment can form the basis for a valid claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    •       Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992)
The Court decided that an award of money damages is possible in a case brought to enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, alleging sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher.

    •       Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998)
The Court decides that an employer may be liable for sexual discrimination caused by a supervisor, but liability depends on the reasonableness of the employer's conduct, as well as the reasonableness of the plaintiff victim's conduct.

    •       Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999)
Held that a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 may be filed against a school board based on student-on-student sexual harassment, if the board is deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment, has actual knowledge of the harassment, and the harassment is so serious that it deprives the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.

           The expected outcome of our effort is to raise awareness of the Hobby Lobby case and how it impacts women and their reproductive rights, and to further educate women on how it is contributing to the already prevalent gender discrimination in our country. We hope that by making women realize that they continue to be treated unequally in comparison to men,   that they will feel compelled to have their voices heard joining with all women across the country to share with America all the forms of discrimination they have experienced in their own lives for being women.                                  

            Another possible outcome is to have women through their discrimination experiences enforce the ratification of CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women) which most other countries have ratified to protect women’s rights. However, the US decided against it explaining their concern that CEDAW would challenge the current laws and culture of the U.S placing women’s rights in the hands of the CEDAW committee which is composed of 23 people (Lowen, n.d.). Raising awareness and knowledge about the CEDAW and having the US ratify this treaty would ensure equality and reduce discrimination against women. It would aim to address issues such as sex trafficking, domestic violence, provide access to education and vocational training, ensure the right to vote, end forced marriages and child marriages and provide access to health care services, and ensure the right to work and own a business without discrimination.

           We want to create a virtual community where we can raise awareness and educate women on current gender discrimination issues, such as the Hobby Lobby case, and create a space where they will have an opportunity to share their discrimination experiences in their own lives. We will do this by establishing an online message board, with the purpose of uniting women across the country to have them fight for women’s rights in a joined effort with the hope of pushing for the ratification of CEDAW to ensure and protect women’s rights in this country.

           Due to the advances in technology, we hope to reach as many women as possible. An online message board will certainly allow us to accommodate an infinite amount of users. Creating a virtual community will also facilitate participation, since it is managed at the convenience of the user. We intend to use the internet to form a virtual community through an online message board. We will attempt to reach out to as many women as possible by advertising about the message board on social networks, through ads that share brief stories of women who have experienced discrimination, hopefully sparking the interest of women with common experiences. The idea is for women to access the message board, read other women’s stories, raise awareness and educate them on current gender discrimination issues. We would also want them to subscribe to the board so they can get weekly updates on current issues, and what they can do to make a difference.

 

Policy Brief Topic

Based on the Congressional Research Service report on Human Trafficking, human trafficking in the United States is an issue affecting 100,000 children that are U.S. citizens, while approximately 17,000 people are brought into the United States every year to be trafficked. Human trafficking is an "international and a domestic crime that involves violations of labor and law, public health, and human rights standards" (Siskin & Wyler, 2013). There is sex and labor trafficking and child trafficking. Although there are policies and laws reduce and ultimately eliminate human trafficking, it continues to be a global issue. "Socially isolated and culturally excluded, disempowered, disenfranchised, and marginalized groups can be particularly susceptible to human trafficking" (Siskin & Wyler, 2013). A challenge in implementing and enforcing anti-trafficking laws is due to the lack of punishment and detectability of those guilty. The number of prosecutions and convictions is not representative in comparison to the prevalence of the issue. So far there is no research to provide evidence on the number of cases of children used for sex trafficking in the US. This is enough information to motivate me to further investigate anti human trafficking policies in the United States.

Source: 

Siskin, A., Wyler, S. L. (2013) Congressional Research Report. Trafficking in Persons: U.S Policy and Issues for Congress. Retrieved on 6/10/2014 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34317.pdf.

Looking Down on Pregnant Women

By Heather Castro

 The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became a federal law to eliminate discrimination in the workforce based on “sex, race, color, national origin and religion”. However, part of this law only applies to those employers that have more than 15 employees. This leaves evident room for employers to operate in discriminatory manner if they have less than the number of employees required. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment to Title VII, which more specifically addressed dealing with pregnant women in the workplace. It was created to deter discrimination on the “basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” which is considered a form of sex discrimination. As stated in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “women affected by pregnancy or related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work” (EEOC, n.d.). Notice they use the word “affected” to refer to the condition of a woman being pregnant. This is already attaching a negative connotation to an expectant mother as if she were  “influenced in a harmful way; impaired; harmed, or attacked” as defined in the dictionary (Dictionary.com, n.d.). Pregnant women are a vulnerable group that is covertly discriminated against, and even an anti-discriminatory policy leaves room for employers to be discriminative. Many employers refuse to hire expectant women, as they also terminate employment, deny promotions, refuse train and offer other benefits to their pregnant employees (AAUW, n.d.).

Pregnant women at many workplaces do not receive accommodations during pregnancy, as the story of Heather Myers was told in the article Workers Face Routine Discrimination (Huff Post, 2013). The article also states there are plenty of stories of pregnant workers that have been “dismissed or forced to take unpaid leaved after requesting such accommodations as a stool to sit on during an eight-hour cashier shift, or a change in schedule.”Many women have taken their cases to the court, and have filed complaints with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. Some of those cases were still pending a year later after the complaint was made. Due to the inconsistency of employers in accommodating pregnant women, there is a legislation being considered by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If the legislation is passed, the law would require employers to accommodate limitations that have been caused by pregnancy. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also made several requests to have the law specify the rights of expectant women. 

Aside from having a policy that fails to protect pregnant women’s rights against discrimination,  several articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are also violated. After all, many governments ignore the implementation of the articles because it is a “declaration” which is not a “legally binding contract” (Ife, 2008).

It violates Article 1, where it states “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, pregnant women among women in general are not treated with the same dignity that men are. They continue to be  seen as less capable than men, and continue to be a minority group despite the efforts to promote gender equality across history.

Article 2, states “everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. Aside from leaving room to discriminate against pregnant women, the Title VII policy also allows employers opportunity to discriminate on the basis of any of the distinctions listed in article 2.

Article 23 specifically addressed employment, and it states that “everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable condition of work and protection against unemployment”. By having a policy that only protects employees if they work for a company that has more than 15 employees, pregnant women are not protected against unemployment. This would also affect their “free choice of employment” as it would limit their ability to select the jobs they would like to have, forcing them to settle for work where employers will hire them pregnant.

Article 25, states that “motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance”. I was not able to identify a “special” form of care or “assistance” for pregnant women entering or currently in the workforce offered under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. If anything, many employers fail to make accommodations to their pregnant employees, forcing them to take vacation days and sick days to compensate for their employer’s lack of flexibility (Huff Post, 2013).

As social workers our duty is to apply deductive and inductive approaches to the practice of human rights, to successfully identify policies that need improvement and generate policies where none exist (Ife, 2008). In this case it is clear that the law needs to be stricter to protect that rights of pregnant women to protect them from being discriminated against based on their sex. As social workers we can support expectant women by helping them engage in participatory democracy. The idea is to have all people in society have an influence in “shaping the discourse of human rights”. We ought to motivate and connect victims to action groups or other resources to have their voices be heard. The idea is to discourage people from being passive, and guide them to become more engaged in the process of their rights acknowledged and respected (Ife, 2008). 


References:
American Association of University Women (n.d.) Retrieved on June 6, 2014 from http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-discrimination-act/

Ife, J. (2008). Human Rights and Social Work: Towards Rights-Based Practice (rev. edition). Cambridge

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d.) Retrieved on June 6, 2014 from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-preg.cfm

Dictionary.com (n.d.) Retrieved on June 6, 2014 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/affected

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (n.d.) Retrieved on June 6, 2014 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Huff Post (2013) Retrieved on June 6, 2013 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/pregnant-worker discrimination_n_3466922.html?view=print&comm_ref=false