posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 12:41 PM
by
Lou Michels
Coming to a courtroom near you -- Family Responsibilities Discrimination
The EEOC recently convened a hearing (some witness statements are here and here) to determine if it should take steps to issue guidance (and then presumably enforce) something called "family responsibilities discrimination" claims. This amorphous term is allegedly aimed at stereotyping claims concerning people with families, child care responsibilities, or elder care responsibilities. I suppose if what was presented was aimed at telling employers they can't make employment decisions based on an assumption that employees with children or elderly parents will somehow be less productive, then there is at least a bona fide link to the gender stereotyping provisions of Title VII. But what emerged from the hearings, which were heavily biased in favor of feminist scholars and workplace advocates, was not so much a concern with gender stereotyping, as it was with requiring people with family obligations to meet the same standards as people who didn't.
In other words, what the Commission heard were people complaining that too many employers weren't willing to provide extended time off, more flexible work schedules, more paid leave, than they do now. The Commission and its witnesses also engaged in some gender stereotyping of their own, apparently assuming that women rising to leadership ranks would somehow be more "family" friendly and give more benefits to employees (primarily, if not exclusively, female). One witness, a senior economist for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted that it was unfair that while some employers had family friendly policies to help themselves in terms of recruiting and retaining committed employees, other companies (Wal-mart, the current universal villain, was mentioned) didn't mind a high turnover rate in what it considered to be relatively low-skilled jobs. The witness then went on to say that legislation was needed so that companies would be penalized economically for not offering more family friendly policies. The purpose of this legislation would be to "level the playing field" and take away the economic advantage inherent in not offering such benefits.
So, of course, what the witnesses wanted was not illegal discrimination remedied, but rather, legislation that would penalize companies for seeking efficiencies in their workforce. Why a company should be penalized for making an economically sound decision that it is cheaper to deal with turnover than to offer certain types of benefits is beyond me. However, it's clear that, along with paid family medical leave, this is going to be another area of interest for plaintiffs lawyers and, if the Democrats win the White House in 2008, the EEOC.