Monthly Archive for March, 2011

Paid Sick Days Standards Promote LGBT Health

Published on March 31, 2011 in Kellan Baker, Vicki Shabo and Work & Family. 0 Comments

Vicki Shabo, Director of Work and Family Programs

Kellan Baker, Senior Policy Associate, National Coalition for LGBT Health

As we near the end of LGBT Health Awareness Week – a time to focus on eliminating the health disparities and health care discrimination faced by the LGBT community – we cannot forget the role that access to health care plays in promoting the health and well-being of LGBT workers and their families. Access to health care goes beyond health insurance and health care services. It also includes workers’ ability to take paid sick time to recover from a common illness, care for a sick loved one or seek preventive care.

In Congress and across the country, advocates and legislators are pressing for paid sick days policies that would guarantee working people the right to take time away from work when they, their spouse or partner, and their children are sick. For LGBT families, legislation that provides paid sick time to care for themselves and their loved ones is critical.

Here are some basic facts: Forty-four million workers in the United States can’t take a single paid sick day when they are ill. Millions more lack paid sick time to care for an ill child or family member. Workers without paid sick days face an impossible choice when illness strikes – ignore their health needs and the health of their family, or lose a much-needed paycheck and risk losing their jobs.

For LGBT workers and their families, the choice can be even more daunting. LGBT families live throughout the United States, and more than one million same-sex couples across the country are raising children. However, LGBT people are regularly discriminated against in employment, relationship recognition and insurance coverage, and the vast majority of LGBT workers have few protections against workplace discrimination. In most states, workers can be fired just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This vulnerability makes it all the more challenging to take a sick day that could generate negative attention or result in job loss. For transgender workers, many of whom may have specific medical needs that require time off from work, the pressure can be even worse.

For LGBT parents who may not have legal rights with respect to their partners’ children and whose employers may not recognize these relationships, it can be even harder to have access to the benefits and flexibility needed to keep their commitment to protecting the health of their families.

As a result, rather than take a risk by seeking time away from work for their health or the health of a child, LGBT workers may feel compelled to send a sick child to school or day care, delay care, or skip necessary recovery and treatment altogether. The negative health consequences of going that route are obvious.

Nationally, workers without paid sick days are 1.5 times more likely than those that have them to go to work sick with the flu and other contagious diseases, spreading germs to co-workers and customers. Those without paid sick days are also more likely to live in households where family members delay or forgo preventive care.

A paid sick days standard that applies to all workers, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status, would guarantee workers time to recover from illness and care for a sick loved one, improving their overall health and the health of their communities. Working parents could get their children the care they need and be able to take time away from work if a health emergency strikes.

Fortunately, there is federal legislation that would establish a paid sick days standard and promote worker health. The Healthy Families Act has been introduced in the last two Congresses and is expected to be reintroduced soon. The legislation would give workers the ability to earn a few job-protected paid sick days each year to use to recover from their own illness or seek medical care – or to help a child or partner who is sick or needs to see a doctor. Under the bill and most proposed state laws, workers could use their paid sick days to care for immediate family members, including same-sex spouses, domestic partners and children.

Three cities – San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee – have already taken the lead and enacted paid sick days laws that apply explicitly to LGBT families. And in nearly 20 states, a national movement for paid sick days is gaining ground. Learn more and join the movement at www.PaidSickDays.org.

Paid sick days are an important step in protecting LGBT workers, the health of their families and their right to equal treatment on the job. That’s why this week we highlight the importance of paid sick days for LGBT health – and continue to make it a part of our advocacy work. All families need paid sick days, and getting sick should not have to jeopardize our economic security, our family’s health or the health of our communities.

A Historic Tuesday in the Fight for Fair Pay

Published on March 29, 2011 in Portia Wu and Workplace Fairness. 1 Comment

Portia Wu, Vice President, NPWF

It’s fitting that the landmark pay discrimination case, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, is being argued before the Supreme Court today, Tuesday, March 29th. Equal Pay Day, which marks how far into the year women must work to match the amount paid to men in the previous year, falls on a Tuesday. Tuesday is also how far into the week women must work to catch up with what their male counterparts were paid the week before. And today happens to be the last Tuesday of Women’s History Month – a time when we celebrate the women who have led the way in the fight for equal rights, reflect on how far we’ve come, and renew our commitment to eliminating the barriers to equality.

Today is a historic day in the struggle for fair pay and equal rights for women. For more than 10 years, Betty Dukes and 1.6 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees have been fighting for their right to challenge unfair pay in court, arguing that the nation’s largest private employer engaged in widespread pay and promotion discrimination. The Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not the case – the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history – can proceed.

The women of Wal-Mart represent the tens of millions of working women in this country who suffer from discrimination in the workplace. Women are nearly half of the labor force and are the sole or co-breadwinners in six out of 10 households. Yet, more than four and a half decades after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, they are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. For African American and Latino women, the numbers are even worse: 62 cents and 52 cents, respectively. Every time women are shortchanged, the negative impact ripples throughout their families, communities and our economy. At its core, that is what the Wal-Mart case is really about: Whether or not women who have been shortchanged have the right to challenge their employers. Sadly, the case has been stalled by the company’s ‘divide and conquer’ strategy.

If the Court rules that the case cannot proceed, more than a million women may be denied the right to seek a remedy for the systemic discrimination they may have suffered. The outcome is important both for the Wal-Mart women and their families, but also for every working woman in the country who needs fair pay.

No matter what happens, the Wal-Mart case has reinvigorated the fight for fair pay. By raising awareness of the prevalence of pay discrimination – an issue that the National Partnership has been working on since the beginning – the case has inspired many women and men to speak up. Women and men across the country have been offering their support for the women of Wal-Mart and sharing their own stories of discrimination. More than 2,000 of you sent moving words of support to Betty Dukes and the women of Wal-Mart, and many more have been engaging through social media.

The timing of this energy and renewed commitment is crucial. Equal Pay Day, Tuesday, April 12th, is only two weeks away. This year, we await the re-introduction of the Paycheck Fairness Act – federal legislation that would get us one step closer to equal pay for equal work through balanced protections for employers and employees. Just this month, the president reaffirmed his commitment to passage of the bill. In light of the data on the wage gap, and the countless stories of women throughout the country who have suffered from pay discrimination, passing the Paycheck Fairness Act this year is critically important.

So, this Tuesday, as we near the end of Women’s History Month and stand with the incredibly courageous, dedicated women of Wal-Mart, let us take inspiration from the fair pay champions who have come before us, as well as the heroes who have committed themselves to the fight today. Just like Betty Dukes and the women of Wal-Mart, we cannot – and will not – give up. Let’s keep the pride, energy and commitment we feel today with us as we continue the fight for fair pay and equal employment practices, until every women gets a fair shake in the workforce.

Right Over Might: The Women of Wal-Mart Fight for Fair Pay

Published on March 28, 2011 in Sarah Crawford and Workplace Fairness. 0 Comments

Director of Workplace Fairness

Cross-posted from the American Constitution Society.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Wal-Mart v. Dukes – the high profile class action case involving 1.6 million women who have worked at Wal-Mart. The Court is poised to decide whether or not the women can proceed as a class to challenge the systemic discriminatory pay and promotion practices of the country’s largest employer.  More than a decade after the women first filed their lawsuit, the Court’s decision will determine if the women will finally get the chance to present the merits of their claims in court.

During ten years of litigation, the class has amassed an impressive body of evidence. Statistical evidence shows that women were receiving significantly less pay and fewer promotions than their male counterparts – despite better performance reviews, greater seniority and fewer disciplinary issues.  Anecdotal evidence demonstrates a corporate culture of gender stereotypes and a lack of objective standards for making personnel decisions.

Before the class can get to the merits of their claims of discrimination, however, they must first convince the Supreme Court that the lower courts properly certified the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has taken up the question of whether the class of women satisfy Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy, as well as Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirement that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”

In this hotly anticipated case, some have expressed concern about corporate bias in the wake of decisions like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  This concern is not unfounded, but there is reason for hope. In recent employment decisions, the Court has delivered a string of victories for workers.  In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., for example, the Court held 6-2 that the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits retaliation against workers who file verbal complaints of violations of the law in the same manner that the law prohibits retaliation for written complaints.  In another recent case, Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Court demonstrated a tough stance on retaliation when it held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from retaliating against third parties.  Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court in favor of an employee who was fired in retaliation for his fiancée/co-worker’s complaint of discrimination.  In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, Justice Scalia again delivered the opinion, concluding that an employer may be liable when the discriminatory bias of a supervisor causes an adverse employment action, even if the ultimate decision maker is not aware of the supervisor’s bias.  Unfortunately, because these recent pro-employee decisions involve individual plaintiffs, they may have limited implications for the women of Wal-Mart.

If Wal-Mart had its way, Betty Dukes – one of the named plaintiffs representing the class of women – would be litigating her case individually.  The company’s strategy is to divide and conquer. Employers are well aware that most employees face powerful disincentives to bring individual claims.  Employees may be unfamiliar with their legal rights.  Due to secrecy in pay and promotion decisions, they may be unaware that their rights have been violated.  They may also fear retaliation or lack the time or money to pursue individual litigation.

For these reasons, class action lawsuits provide a critical vehicle for workers to vindicate their statutory rights and obtain meaningful relief.  The National Partnership for Women & Families joined with the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and California Women Lawyers to file an amicus brief in support of the class. Our brief cites critical reforms that have been achieved through employment class actions.  Throughout our nation’s history, this kind of legal action has played a key role in rooting out discrimination.  In this case, we have a true “Betty v. Goliath” situation – and failing to certify the class could mean that discrimination against more than a million women could go unremedied.

With the future of class action lawsuits in the employment context uncertain, one thing about this case is clear.  Tuesday will mark another milestone in the struggle for fair pay for women. Women in the U.S. are still paid an average of 77 cents for every dollar paid to their male counterparts, making it incredibly important that women like those working at Wal-Mart report cases of discrimination and seek widespread reform.  The size and high profile nature of the case has no doubt raised awareness about pay discrimination, and advocates hope it will inspire more working women to challenge discrimination in their own workplaces.

Many people – women and men alike – are following the case closely, and are eager to show their support, because the case will have such important consequences for working women throughout the country.  The National Partnership recently asked activists to share a message with the women of Wal-Mart.  More than 2,000 men and women submitted passionate, moving words of encouragement. Some shared their own stories of workplace discrimination.  Prior to tomorrow’s argument, supporters and fair pay advocates will rally on the steps of the Supreme Court to stand with the women of Wal-Mart.  With so much at stake for women and the families that depend on their incomes, the show of solidarity and increased awareness of the need for fair pay could not be more important.

The Affordable Care Act at One

Published on March 25, 2011 in Campaign for Better Care, Health Care, Judith Lichtman and Reform. 0 Comments

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

This week is the first anniversary of the Affordable Care Act – the greatest advance for women’s health in a generation.

This law is helping me, my 97-year-old mother, my daughters and granddaughter. It’s making care more affordable, more secure, and more responsive to women’s needs at all stages of our lives.

And it’s giving families the security they need to avoid financial devastation when illness strikes.

It saddens me that opponents are keeping up their relentless, baseless attacks instead of joining with us to make the health care system work for all of us.

I wrote a piece about it that’s running on Kaiser Health News. I hope you’ll read it and tell me what you think. Also check out our new fact sheets on the health reform law and how it affects women, older women and lower-income women.

And take a look at our Campaign for Better Care, which is doing incredible work to make sure reform is implemented in ways that will help the sickest, most vulnerable patients – who often are older women.

~ Judy

Anniversary a Time to Commit to a New Wave of Workplace Reforms

Published on March 25, 2011 in Vicki Shabo and Work & Family. 0 Comments

Vicki Shabo, Director of Work and Family Programs

Locked doors. It’s one of the many reasons that 146 workers – mainly young immigrant women – died in a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City 100 years ago today. Even though great progress has been made since then, workers today are trapped by a different kind of locked door: public and workplace policies that too often are unfair and force workers to make impossible choices between their caregiving responsibilities and their economic security.

Back in 1911, women were considered the valuable stewards of the next generation. So when more than 100 women perished in a fire on the job, policymakers felt extra pressure to enact protections to address obviously dangerous and damaging workplaces. The now-ubiquitous signs we see requiring doors to remain unlocked during business hours, along with significant safety and health regulations, are manifestations of the reforms and protections that resulted from the fire. The tragedy helped to galvanize efforts that led to many labor reforms we know take for granted, including minimum wage and overtime laws.

Thankfully, today, working mothers and fathers – all of whom are responsible for raising the next generation – are no longer literally locked in. There are still industries where the enforcement of health and safety standards falls far short but, for most workers, physical working conditions are much improved.

Today, it is another kind of barrier that threatens workers and their families. Tens of millions of workers in the United States are trapped by workplace policies and practices that make it impossible for them to honor their commitments to their families. The health, safety and well-being of workers and families are harmed every day by rigid schedules, punitive policies for arriving at work late or leaving early, retribution or termination for needing a sick day, and the absence of a national policy that requires job-protected paid family leave. Too often, working parents face an impossible choice between caring for a feverish child and their job. Too often, they are fired if they refuse to work overtime because they need to pick a child up from daycare before it closes. In this economy, the fear of losing a job or losing pay means workers have no practical choice but to remain at work.

To make matters worse, today’s working women are trapped by a persistent wage gap borne of discriminatory practices, subjective policies and our failure to strengthen federal equal pay protections.

Just as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire led progressive policymakers in the early 20th century to recognize that new labor laws were key to protecting workers’ health and safety and the well-being of the next generation, the plight of working families – under attack by lawmakers in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and elsewhere – should lead progressive lawmakers today to the same conclusion.

A national public policy providing a minimum standard of paid sick days would ensure that a working mother or father could care for a sick child without risking their job or losing much-needed income. A national paid family and medical leave insurance system would help workers care for a new baby or sick parent, or for their own serious health condition, without jeopardizing their family’s livelihood. Common-sense reforms around scheduling would eliminate the problems caused by workplaces designed for the 1960s in a 21st century world. And federal legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act would bring working women that much closer to fair, discrimination-free workplaces.

In a nation that talks about family values, it is time to value our citizens as responsible workers and responsible family members. On this 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, let us dedicate ourselves to the next wave of reform: creating public policies that address the needs of today’s workforce.

Read more about the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire and the legacy of the last survivor here.

Let’s Not Reverse Our Progress on Stopping HIV/AIDS

Published on March 10, 2011 in Health Care, Laura Hessburg, Repro Health Watch and Reproductive Health. 0 Comments Tags: .

Laura Hessburg, Senior Health Policy Advisor

Today is National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, when we should all pause to remember that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is still shaping and taking too many lives, in the United States and around the globe.

Unfortunately, the callous “war on women” being waged by leaders in the House of Representatives, which includes shameful attempts to defund Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning services, threatens to cause grave harm to people who are HIV-positive.

Consider this: In the United States, HIV affects nearly 280,000 women. Analyses by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) show that HIV is most prevalent among those living in low-income communities. There are strong links between HIV and poverty. The American HIV/AIDS epidemic is also characterized by strong racial and ethnic disparities, with people of color significantly more likely to be infected than those who are White.

Women with low incomes and women of color rely even more heavily than others on Title X-funded clinics as their health care safety net.

Title X clinics are indispensable in the fight against HIV. A government review by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) once concluded that “[w]omen who utilize Title X… services as their primary source of health care have significantly greater odds of receiving contraceptive services and/or care for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than women who utilize private physicians or HMOs.”

In 2009, Title X providers performed more than six million tests for STIs, including nearly one million HIV tests.  Services funded through Title X  include essential counseling and education on HIV and other reproductive health issues.  This education is key to preventing the further spread of HIV, especially at a time when the CDC estimates that one in five people living with HIV infection in the United States do not know they are infected.

If Congress eliminates funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood, women’s health will suffer terribly. Efforts to stem the HIV/AIDS epidemic will be hampered.  New HIV and other STI infections will go undetected.  Even more people with HIV will go without the treatment that can save their lives.

We are counting on the Senate and President Obama to stand strong for women and their families, and block all measures that will harm women’s health.

Please tell your Senators to prioritize women’s health and ensure that all women have access to the reproductive health services they need.

Too Big to Be Held Accountable?

Published on March 1, 2011 in Sarah Crawford and Workplace Fairness. 1 Comment

Director of Workplace Fairness

The Women of Wal-Mart Deserve Their Day in Court to Challenge Unfair Pay

Cross-posted from the American Constitution Society.

Too often, the interests of workers and businesses are assumed to be at odds. According to a friend-of-the-court brief filed today, in the largest employment discrimination case in our nation’s history, this doesn’t have to be true.

The National Partnership for Women & Families joined with women’s business groups to file the brief, which calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the benefits of fair, inclusive policies for businesses, and the importance of class action lawsuits in reforming discriminatory practices, as it considers whether the case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart can continue as a class action.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart has been making headlines since it began. In 2000, Betty Dukes, a female greeter at a Wal-Mart store in California suffered an unfair pay cut and demotion. Soon after, she learned that female Wal-Mart employees across the country had experienced similar injustices. In 2001, Dukes and 1.6 million women like her, who had or currently were working for Wal-Mart, sought to hold the company responsible for the company’s discriminatory pay and promotion practices.

Despite evidence that the practices in question were widespread and systemic, Wal-Mart has tried to avoid liability in the case by claiming that it is too big to handle. The argument has failed in the lower courts, but the company has appealed the issue to the Supreme Court. It will hear argument on whether or not the women should be able to proceed as one class on March 29th.

The future of the case currently rests on the claim by Wal-Mart — the nation’s largest private sector employer — that its employees cannot collectively charge it with wrongdoing because the group is too large. Can a company really be too big to be held accountable when it breaks the law? According to the brief filed on behalf of the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, California Women Lawyers and the National Partnership, the answer is no—and, notably, fair policies and the reforms achieved through class actions are not necessarily bad for business.

As the brief details, compelling research demonstrates the benefits of fair pay and promotion policies for businesses. By paying their workers fairly, employers boost employee retention and productivity while enhancing their own image. Contrary to common objections by employers, fairness in the workplace can actually boost business bottom lines. And of course, discrimination is against the law. Therefore, by following the law and treating their workers fairly, businesses protect themselves against costly litigation and liability.

While many employers have reaped the rewards associated with inclusive policies, not all businesses have recognized these advantages. On average, women are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. And there are still significant disparities across industries. Over the course of their lives, women lose tens of thousands of dollars in income and savings. At the same time, six out of ten mothers act as primary or co-breadwinners for their families. It is clear that discrimination in today’s workplace has a ripple effect on working women, their families and the national economy.

That is why class actions are so important. They provide a critical tool for individuals to challenge systemic discrimination. Workers may not have the time or money to pursue individual cases, they may fear retaliation, and often, they may not know that their rights have been violated. This is particularly true in cases of pay discrimination because employees are often unaware of how much their co-workers are being paid, and some employers go so far as to prohibit discussions of pay. Class actions provide an efficient way for workers, business and the courts to address serious issues that would otherwise go unremedied. They can also result in the type of systemic reforms needed to secure fair, discrimination-free workplaces.

In today’s brief, the National Partnership and women’s business groups urge the Supreme Court to recognize the intended purpose of our nation’s guarantee of equal employment opportunity and the vital role of class actions. The women of Wal-Mart deserve their day in court to stand together to challenge unlawful discrimination.

Betty Dukes’s story is the story of millions of women throughout this country who face workplace discrimination. On April 12th, just a few weeks after the court hears arguments in the case, the nation will recognize Equal Pay Day. The women of Wal-Mart have spent 10 years fighting for fair pay, and this case will determine the future of that fight. With critical rights hanging in the balance, Wal-Mart’s attempt to divide and conquer must be stopped. The company is not too big to be held accountable for its actions.