Monthly Archive for January, 2010

Celebrating Ledbetter: End Pay Discrimination Against Women Now!

Sharyn Tejani, Senior Policy Counsel

Sharyn Tejani, Senior Policy Counsel

This week we celebrate the one-year anniversary of enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: a law that righted a terrible Supreme Court decision and set the stage for the next fair pay law we need — the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Lilly Ledbetter’s story is an inspiration.  Almost 20 years after starting work as one of just a few women at a tire plant, she received an anonymous note letting her know that she was being paid less than her male coworkers — even those who had worked there less time than she had.  She sued and a jury ruled in her favor, but the Supreme Court reversed the ruling.  Lilly continued fighting and she won where it matters most — in the court of public opinion and with Congress.  Read more about the case and the law here.

But even after Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and President Obama made it the first bill he signed into law, wage discrimination persists.  Women still are paid just 77 cents to a man’s dollar and the inequities remain, even when education and type of job are factored out. For some alarming statistics on the extent of the wage gap, click here.  So, as Lilly Ledbetter said on the day that her bill was signed, now we need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act

The Paycheck Fairness Act will help stop wage discrimination in four important ways:

  1. Making it harder for employers to justify wage discrimination;
  2. Prohibiting retaliation against workers who ask about employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages;
  3. Authorizing the government to collect wage data so civil rights enforcement agencies can target their resources; nad
  4. Offering employers technical assistance to help them analyze their pay data and make sure they are not discriminating.

Learn more about the Paycheck Fairness Act here.

The House of Representatives has already passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, and it has 35 cosponsors in the Senate.  Click here to let Senators know that you support equal wages for women and the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

Let’s honor Lilly Ledbetter and give ourselves something else to celebrate. Take action today!

Are Workplace Wellness Programs Really as Innocuous as They Seem?

Sabrina Corlette

Sabrina Corlette, Director of Health Policy Programs

So, what’s wrong with the workplace wellness programs included in the Senate’s health care reform bill?  That’s a fair question, and one you may have asked yourself if you saw some of the recent coverage of the issue.

To be clear, many workplace wellness programs are innovative, effective, and help employees and their families get and stay healthy, which benefits employees and employers alike.  These workplace wellness programs should be implemented, studied, and then the best of them should be replicated (as the House health reform bill proposes.)

Unfortunately, in the name of “workplace wellness” the Senate bill creates a loophole that would allow employers and insurance companies to discriminate against people based on their health status.

Some may say, “What’s wrong with wellness? How can you be against that?”  As usual, the devil is in the details, and the language in the Senate bill is so nuanced that answering the question “what’s the problem” can stump even the top policy wonk or the most informed journalist.

Here’s my attempt at a plain English explanation.  To start, there are two important things to know in order to understand why the Senate bill would create a loophole that would allow insurance companies to continue to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.

First, under current law employers are allowed to do some cost-shifting.   Did you think corporations would take money from their own profits to help motivate people to get healthy? Yeah, right.  No, what’s happening is that employers raise everyone’s insurance premium, and then give a “reduction” to those who meet certain health targets and call it a reward.   Those who can’t meet the health targets — for whatever reason — get charged more than their healthier co-workers.

Second, current law says a reward or penalty to an employee under these programs cannot exceed 20 percent of the cost of their health plan.  The Senate bill ups the ante and could eventually allow employers to charge an employee up to 50 percent of their health plan.   With the cost of insurance soaring – an average family policy could cost $20,000 by 2016.  This means people could be charged as much as $10,000 more for their insurance than their co-workers, simply because they have high cholesterol, high blood pressure, or weigh more than they should.   If this sounds like discrimination based on health status (something lawmakers have promised health reform would fix in our current system), that’s because it is!

Knowing that, consider the many reasons an employee may not be able to meet a health target and keep in mind that not all those reasons are within the employee’s control.   Scientists have understood for some time that some conditions like high cholesterol are often a function of genetics.  Also, certain ethnic and racial groups face genetic predispositions to conditions such as hypertension and diabetes.  Recent studies have also suggested that, because of the disruption to their body’s natural circadian rhythm, people who work the night shift are more at risk for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and heart disease.

Women, in particular, stand to lose the most if this back-door discrimination is allowed.

Women want to make healthy lifestyle choices for themselves and their families, yet in practice they often neglect their own health because they put the needs of their children, spouses and aging relatives before their own.  And research shows that women are more likely than men to suffer from chronic conditions, meaning that women could pay disproportionately more for health insurance under these programs than their male colleagues. Such disparities are even more acute for low-income women and women of color.

This potential for discrimination is particularly troubling for the many women with lower incomes who work multiple jobs to support their families. These women often lack access to healthy food choices and have limited time or ability to access safe environments for physical activity. In effect, these programs will make health coverage less affordable to the very people who need it the most.

Employers can help everyone prioritize their health by providing a supportive environment for health and wellness in the workplace.  But, if Congress adopts the language in the Senate’s health reform bill on workplace wellness programs, we’ll see employers and insurance companies using this loophole as a way to discriminate.  That’s not good for anyone, and it undermines the promise of reform.

To learn more about workplace wellness programs under health reform, please see our recent Issue Brief:

Protect Women and Families From Discrimination: Prevent Employer “Wellness” Programs From Unfairly Increasing Health Insurance Premiums

Pregnancy Discrimination On Wisteria Lane!

Desperate Housewives

Desperate Housewives

If you haven’t seen the latest episodes of Desperate Housewives, you have missed more than just the usual melodrama swirling around the residents of Wisteria Lane. A new storyline may be all-too-familiar to many viewers — a woman facing pregnancy discrimination on the job.

Lynnette, a working wife, mother of four, and “desperate housewife” chose not to reveal her pregnancy to Carlos, her boss and longtime friend and neighbor. When Lynnette received a promotion over a coworker who was pregnant, it became clear to her that she would be discriminated against as well if Carlos found out about her pregnancy.

Her fears were confirmed in a recent episode. Once Carlos discovered that Lynnette was pregnant, she was quickly fired. Although Carlos claimed that she was fired because she refused to take a promotion and relocate, it was clear to her — and to the audience — that the real reason was her pregnancy. Can this happen in real life, or is it just another outlandish plot?

Statistics show that the Desperate Housewives pregnancy discrimination storyline is neither exaggerated nor rare. In 2008, pregnancy discrimination charges rose to their highest level in the history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which saw an almost 13 percent increase in claims over the previous year. And the most recent increase is part of a trend; since 1992, pregnancy discrimination charges to the EEOC and its companion agencies have skyrocketed by 86 percent. Read about the increase here.

Some cases rival the drama on Wisteria Lane. In 2004, the Department of Justice joined a lawsuit against the Washington D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, claiming that women in training for the program were required to take pregnancy tests and told that they could lose their jobs if they became pregnant. As a result, two women said they chose to terminate their pregnancies for fear of losing their jobs. The complaint the U.S. Department of Justice filed against the employer is here. The case was eventually settled and the women received $100,000 each.

In 2007, the EEOC settled a case of pregnancy discrimination for $350,000 against Mothers Ware Inc., which sells maternity clothes. According to the EEOC, the store refused to hire pregnant women and discriminated against a supervisor who complained about the policy. Read the EEOC’s press release about the case here.

In August, the EEOC brought a pregnancy discrimination suit against a New Jersey trucking company, Decker Transport. According to the EEOC, when one of the women working at Decker informed her boss she was pregnant, she was immediately put on leave and told she should not come back until she got “rid of the problem.” When she refused, she was fired.

Those are women who spoke up and complained. Many more may be afraid to do so, or may not even know that discrimination against pregnant women is illegal.
Find out more about your rights here.

Given the economic crisis, it is especially important that women have secure employment. For those outside of Wisteria Lane, pregnancy discrimination truly can create a desperate situation. Not only does it cause emotional suffering, but it also threatens the economic security of working families who rely on women’s income.

Learn more about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and what protections it provides.