Archive for the 'Judith Lichtman' Category

Time for Concrete Action to Stop Discrimination Against Pregnant Women and Caregivers

Published on February 15, 2012 in Judith Lichtman and Workplace Fairness. 1 Comment

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

Today, I was honored to join a distinguished group of scholars, advocates, government officials, and legal and policy experts to discuss an issue of critical importance to working women and families in this country: discrimination based on pregnancy and caregiving.

The meeting was held by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and it focused on the latest research on these persistent forms of discrimination, enforcement of laws that prohibit discrimination, and actions employers and government officials can take to better protect pregnant workers, caregivers and families. It was on this last point that I focused my remarks.

The National Partnership has long been an advocate for pregnant women and caregivers in the workplace. We worked to pass the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and many other critical laws, and we continue fighting for anti-discrimination laws and policies today. 

With good reason. Sadly, discrimination against pregnant women and caregivers is on the rise. So today, we urged the administration to aggressively address the issue by creating a multi-agency task force that can address critical gaps in research, outreach, education, policy development and enforcement.

This complex and pernicious type of discrimination needs a well-coordinated and comprehensive response. And the EEOC, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can all take concrete steps to strengthen their anti-discrimination work. Today’s EEOC meeting shows a commendable commitment to doing so.

The National Partnership made these specific recommendations:

  • EEOC should provide guidance and best practices for avoiding discrimination against pregnant workers and caregivers, in addition to training investigators to better identify this kind of discrimination, utilizing its own authority to file charges, enforcing recent caregiver guidance and participating in court cases as subject-matter experts.
  • DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs should issue specific regulations and guidance on sex discrimination, and it should train investigators to identify both discrimination against pregnant workers and caregivers and violations of the FMLA.
  • DOL’s Wage & Hour Division receives thousands of FMLA complaints each year. More resources should be dedicated to enforcing this essential law. In addition, newly-updated surveys of workers and employers on the FMLA should be implemented, and data from past surveys should be carefully analyzed to assess needs.
  • We applaud the recent efforts of DOL Secretary Hilda Solis and the first lady to raise awareness about the FMLA’s military leave provisions. However, Bush-era regulations approved in 2008 made it more difficult for employees to take leave. These changes should be rescinded.
  • DOL should also enforce the new right to breaks for nursing mothers, because many hourly workers remain unaware of it.
  • DOJ enforces state and local government employers’ nondiscrimination obligations. It should prioritize action in pregnancy and caregiver discrimination cases.
  • And finally, OPM should ensure that the federal government is a model employer by implementing family friendly protections such as paid parental leave.

Working women and caregivers depend on equal opportunity in the workplace, and their families depend on them. We applaud the EEOC for bringing attention to this important issue, and we look forward to continuing to work with the administration to put an end to discrimination that threatens the economic security of our nation’s families. No worker should have to risk adverse treatment, lost income or loss of a job due to pregnancy, childbirth or family caregiving responsibilities.

Read my full written and submitted testimony here. 

Remembering a Major Step toward Equality in the Courts

Published on September 25, 2011 in Judges & Supreme Court and Judith Lichtman. 2 Comments

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

Thirty years ago today, women and girls in every corner of the country watched with pride as Sandra Day O’Connor raised her right hand, took an oath and became the first woman justice on the Supreme Court. As a lawyer who has spent my entire career fighting for equality and justice, it was an extraordinary moment and, as it turns out, one that began an overdue march toward greater representation for women on our courts.

Today, nearly 46 percent of law school graduates are women – a significant jump from 32.8 percent 30 years ago. But it will be many years before some of those new graduates take their places on the bench. Of the more than 17,100 federal and state judges in this country today, only 26 percent are women.

The Senate’s failure to put aside partisan politics and confirm highly qualified judicial nominees is a big part of the problem. President Obama has nominated many strong candidates for the federal bench, including 71 women, but the confirmations of many have been stalled in the Senate. Currently, the confirmations of more than 18 women have been stalled. More than one in seven federal judgeships in the country – 103 positions – are or soon will be vacant. And 31 of them qualify as judicial emergencies.*

Last December, National Partnership President Debra Ness said it was time to sound the alarm on judicial vacancies. “Justice depends on having judges in place to enforce our laws, resolve disputes and protect the rights of those who face discrimination and violations of their rights,” she said. That remains true, and deeply troubling, because the intransigence in the Senate shows no sign of abating.

Unless it does, and unless senators routinely confirm qualified female and male nominees who have a deep commitment to equal justice under the law for women, people of color, workers, seniors, immigrants and everyone who faces discrimination, we will not fully realize the promise of that extraordinary moment 30 years ago – and equal justice will remain elusive.

—–

* Nominee and vacancy numbers updated November 17, 2011

220 Reasons That Paid Sick Days Campaigns Will Succeed

Published on July 22, 2011 in Judith Lichtman and Work & Family. 0 Comments

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

Momentum and support for paid sick days policies in this country are growing like never before. Just last month, Connecticut passed the nation’s first statewide paid sick days bill, which was signed into law by Governor Dannel Malloy July 1st, and the Philadelphia City Council took a stand despite mayoral opposition by passing a paid sick days measure.

With the energy and activity around state and local paid sick days campaigns providing an exciting backdrop, the National Partnership and our ally Family Values @ Work brought together 220 advocates, policy experts, workers and business leaders from 23 states and Washington, D.C., for the 2011 National Summit on Paid Sick Days and Paid Family Leave. The Summit, held in Washington, D.C., on July 11th, included stimulating strategic discussions about the past, present and future of efforts to secure paid sick days and paid family leave for America’s workers.

From the opening plenary panel on the economic realities facing today’s workforce to a range of small group workshops, the Summit provided advocates, workers and businesses multiple opportunities to discuss new research, share creative ideas and best practices, and make their voices heard. The lively discussions and exchange of ideas among such a diverse group of supporters and advocates inspired all of us to redouble our efforts.

On the day of action that followed the Summit, participants shared their stories and enthusiasm with their members of Congress. In total, nearly 100 congressional offices heard about the need for the Healthy Families Act and the state paid leave fund proposed by President Obama. Congressional action on these policies would show working families that policymakers understand the conflicts they face every day trying to manage the dual demands of work and family.

Now that everyone is back home, we’re looking forward to seeing the great energy and momentum we felt in D.C. continue. In Seattle, where support is growing for an innovative paid sick days bill created through a partnership of advocates and business leaders, we could see progress by the end of the summer. In Denver, voters will cast their ballots on a popular paid sick days standard in November. And in Massachusetts, New York City, Philadelphia and elsewhere, promising activity continues.

With more victories on the horizon, fewer workers will have to choose between their health and their economic security. All of the advocates, policy experts, workers and business leaders who attended the Summit – along with the hundreds who couldn’t make it – are committed to ensuring that, very soon, no worker will have to make these impossible choices. With their energy and dedication, forward-thinking businesses, and savvy policymakers in support, there is no doubt we’ll get there.

To get the latest news on paid sick days efforts throughout the country and new research and resources on the importance of this basic labor standard, visit PaidSickDays.org. For more information on paid family leave, check out our paid leave research library.

View photos from the Summit here.

The Pursuit of Justice is Not Over

Published on June 20, 2011 in Judith Lichtman and Workplace Fairness. 2 Comments

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the women of Wal-Mart cannot proceed as a group as they challenge the company’s discriminatory pay and promotion practices. It was a disappointing day for the women involved in the case and for all of us who are fighting for fair pay and fair opportunities for advancement for America’s women.  But today’s decision is not the end.

The good news is that the Court’s decision was not about the merits of the women’s charges, only whether or not they could continue with the case as one group or class. On that question, the Court decided that the women of Wal-Mart did not have enough in common to bring a class action for claims of discrimination. Incredibly, the Justices relied on the fact that Wal-Mart has a written policy prohibiting discrimination, paired with individual managers’ discretion, to support its ruling. As all three women on the Court, led by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justice Breyer, noted in dissent, the majority ignores the realities of how employment discrimination really plays out in the workplace. “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware. The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes.”

This setback means that the women of Wal-Mart will have to continue their pursuit of justice in smaller groups and through individual cases. After 10 years of fighting for their day in court, there is no doubt that many will continue to do so. Wal-Mart can now expect to deal with thousands of charges of discrimination nationwide.

These women have legitimate cases and Wal-Mart – as the nation’s largest private employer – must be held accountable. There is clear evidence that the company paid women less than men in every job category and that managers hand-picked employees for promotions based on a “good old boys” network. That is unacceptable – and it is against the law.

What is just as clear is that this opinion underscores the serious need for a federal law that will help prevent and remedy pay discrimination against women in this country.  America’s families rely more than ever on women’s incomes—which makes the need for fair pay all the more urgent.

Wal-Mart’s actions are part of a larger pattern of discrimination in this country. Women are still paid, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. We hold only 40 percent of management positions and one out of six corporate officer positions.

Part of the reason pay inequity is so widespread is because employers know that under existing laws they won’t be held accountable for discrimination’s true cost. And most victims of pay discrimination don’t realize they’re being underpaid. Many employers, like Wal-Mart, discourage or prohibit their employees from discussing their wages with co-workers.

Fortunately, the Paycheck Fairness Act – re-introduced in Congress on Equal Pay Day this year – would close the loopholes in existing laws that make it easier for employers to engage in pay discrimination, protect employees who discuss or inquire about pay, and strengthen the penalties for employers who choose to break the law. If the Paycheck Fairness Act had been in place 10 years ago, many women in the Wal-Mart case would have been protected from the discrimination that they are challenging today.

The pursuit of justice for the women of Wal-Mart and women facing discrimination around the country is far from over. The Wal-Mart women will continue to challenge the company’s policies in the courts, and we will continue to call on Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and other measures to restore our civil rights protections.

Women need and deserve fair pay and fair opportunities for advancement. We will get there, in spite of today.

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

It’s Politics v. Science. Again.

Published on December 1, 2010 in Judith Lichtman and Reproductive Health. 1 Comment

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

It’s a fact: Contraceptive use improves overall health. It enables women to plan and space their pregnancies. It has contributed to dramatic declines in maternal and infant mortality. And it has been a driving force in reducing unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.

But things don’t always work out as planned. Emergency contraception (EC) is a safe, effective way to prevent pregnancy after contraceptive failure or unprotected sex, such as when women are sexually assaulted. Although EC is not a substitute for regular contraceptive use, it can help reduce unintended pregnancy if women are able to access it in a timely manner. At the National Partnership, we want EC to be accessible to all women who need it.  That’s why we’re so disappointed by a recent decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Here’s some background: In 2006, after years of delay in making a decision on whether to make the emergency contraceptive Plan B available without a prescription, the FDA decided to limit over-the-counter sales to women ages 18 and older. It was a highly controversial decision because it directly contradicted an independent panel of experts who voted unanimously in 2003 that Plan B was safe for non-prescription use. That expert panel also voted 23-4 to recommend that Plan B be available without prescription or age restriction.

Thanks to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a U.S. District Court finally ruled in 2009 that the FDA’s decision to limit access of Plan B was politically-motivated and scientifically-flawed. The Court ordered the FDA to lower the age limit and re-examine whether Plan B should be available to women of all ages without prescription.

However, the FDA merely reduced the age limit for accessing Plan B to 17 – and it recently announced that it does not plan to reconsider expanding its availability. Read the entire timeline here (link to RHTP timeline).

We are disappointed by that announcement. As FDA officials know, reproductive health services – including easy access to emergency contraceptives – are basic health services for women of all ages.

Politics should never get in the way of meeting women’s health care needs. Please contact the FDA and ask its leaders to make emergency contraception available without a prescription to women of all ages.

Unintended pregnancy does not discriminate- women of all ages need access to emergency contraception so they can prevent unintended pregnancy.

Take action today. Make your voice heard.

The Power of Three

Published on October 4, 2010 in Judges & Supreme Court and Judith Lichtman. 0 Comments
Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

It’s the first Monday in October, and the Supreme Court convenes today for a new term.  But this term is different from all others because, today for the first time ever, three women are serving together on our highest court. It is significant — momentous — that one-third of the Court is female, even though that fraction does not yet represent our proportion of the population.  But it is a sign of progress that was once almost unimaginable for me and most of my peers.

Elena Kagan’s appointment is about more than just numbers. Her appointment brings us closer to the day when it is no longer surprising to see a woman on the Supreme Court or in other positions of power, closer to the day when powerful female role models are the norm.

I’ve known Justice Kagan for many years, and I know she will make us all proud.  As she rules on cases, she will have the chance to demonstrate her towering intellect, fairness, independence, and fierce commitment to justice for all.  I know that she will continue to be an inspiration to me and to all of us who strive for justice.

So I look forward to this new Supreme Court term, and to seeing three female justices together on our highest court. So today, we celebrate our new Supreme Court Justice and tomorrow, we continue to work toward the day when we there are four — or even five! — female justices and, someday soon, true equality in all branches of government and our society.

The Sweet Smell of Progress

Published on June 9, 2010 in Judges & Supreme Court and Judith Lichtman. 0 Comments
Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

Judith L. Lichtman, Senior Advisor

Earlier this month, I was invited by the White House to watch President Obama nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve on the Supreme Court. The ceremony was even more moving than I expected, and that took me a little by surprise. I had tears in my eyes for much of that morning ceremony in the East Room. If Kagan is confirmed, women will comprise one-third of the Supreme Court. That’s a fraction that does not yet represent our proportion of the population — but it’s a stake that was once unimaginable for me and most of my peers.

Read the full post on WomensEnews.org »

Kagan: Supremely Intelligent, Eminently Qualified

Published on May 13, 2010 in Judges & Supreme Court and Judith Lichtman. 0 Comments
Judith L. Lichtman

Judith L. Lichtman

I had the honor and privilege of attending a special announcement ceremony at the White House on Monday, and I couldn’t be more pleased with President Obama’s decision to nominate Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next United States Supreme Court justice.  I have known her for many decades and have deep respect for her commitment to equal justice.

photo.email.blog.kagan

Judges are the gatekeepers of our fundamental rights, and Elena Kagan gets it. She knows that the Supreme Court decides cases every year that touch women’s lives. And she has a proud history of public service, a fair and thoughtful approach to legal issues, a record of extraordinary accomplishment, and a history of working effectively with people who hold diverse political and legal views.

She has also had a distinguished career as a law school professor, the first woman Dean of Harvard Law School, and our nation’s first woman Solicitor General.  There is no doubt that Kagan is eminently qualified for this post.

The Senate confirmed Elena Kagan as Solicitor General with strong Republican support in March 2009.  It should once again confirm her, quickly and without controversy.

Debunking Myths and Misinformation in the Health Reform Debate

Published on August 31, 2009 in Health Care, Judith Lichtman and Reproductive Health. 5 Comments
Judith L. Lichtman

Judith L. Lichtman

It is always a terrible shame when politics gets in the way of the imperative to meet the health care needs of women.

 

At the National Partnership, we remain fully committed to health care reform that guarantees universal access to high quality, affordable reproductive health services – including family planning, maternity care, and abortion. Despite the importance of these services to women, reproductive health has – predictably enough – emerged as a divisive issue in the ongoing health care reform debate.

Specifically, anti-choice politicians and advocacy groups have ramped up efforts to use health care reform as a vehicle to undermine access to abortion services, although much of what is being said about abortion coverage bears little relationship to the actual proposals being debated in Congress. In reality, abortion coverage is not mandated by any of the four bills that have been marked up in the House and Senate – despite high-pitched assertions to the contrary.

Three of the four bills considered by House and Senate Committees to date merely allow reproductive health services to be treated the same as all other primary care health care services – meaning that an advisory committee or the HHS secretary would make a determination about coverage. The more conservative House Energy and Commerce committee approved a bill which takes a dramatically different approach – one designed to reflect an abortion truce that maintains the status quo at best. The legislation passed by that Committee addresses abortion coverage most explicitly –­ and in fact makes clear that abortion services cannot be included in the “essential benefits package” that plans would be required to offer.

The Energy and Commerce Committee legislative language clearly states that health plans participating in exchange are neither prohibited nor required to include abortion coverage. Instead, the Committee language is designed to allow women to retain the type of coverage they currently have. Consistent with current practice in the private health insurance market, the amendment authored by Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) would allow – not require – insurers to sell policies to individuals and some small businesses through a national insurance exchange that include abortion coverage.

The Capps language also addresses concerns that plans participating in the exchange that receive federal dollars not use those government funds to pay for coverage of abortion services by requiring that coverage for any abortion services provided for reasons other than those allowed under the Hyde amendment (rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life) be paid for out of private premiums. Under the Capps language, both public and private plans could cover abortion services – but with private dollars. In addition, the Capps amendment would not pre-empt state laws regulating abortion and restrictions on state Medicaid coverage of abortion would continue – meaning that the federal funds could not be used to provide abortion services except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life.

It is always a terrible shame when politics gets in the way of the imperative to meet the health care needs of women. For women, reproductive health services are basic health services, and lawmakers should remember that. Efforts to limit coverage of abortion services are really attempts to deny women access to health care services that are legal, necessary, and that one-third of American women will need during the course of their reproductive lives.