Family responsibilities discrimination in the United States

Last updated

Family Responsibilities Discrimination (FRD), also known as caregiver discrimination, is a form of employment discrimination toward workers who have caregiving responsibilities. [1] Some examples of caregiver discrimination include changing an employee's schedule to conflict with their caregiving responsibilities, refusing to promote an employee, or refusing to hire an applicant. [2]

Contents

Background

Caregiving in the United States

Caregiving, such as eldercare or child care, is common in the United States. According to AARP, one in every six Americans provides care for a family member over 50. [3] The National Caregiving Alliance states that unpaid caregivers are an increasing population. [4] Between the years 2015 to 2020, the number of unpaid caregivers increased from 18 to 20 percent. [4] While most caregivers are women, men and other people on the gender spectrum and of all ages comprise a significant amount of the caregiving population. Specifically, the National Caregiving Alliance states that in 2020 61 percent of family caregivers were women and 39 percent were men. [4]

Effects of caregiver discrimination

One major factor in FRD is gender-based stereotypes and bias, which fuel adverse employment action toward workers or applicants. Often behind employer bias are assumptions about the employee that their caregiving responsibilities will impact their work. Studies show that caregiving parents faced adverse employment action, such as being less likely to be hired, offered lower salaries, and were given low ratings in areas such as competence. [5]

There are socioeconomic and gender disparities associated with caregiver discrimination. As a result of employer assumptions based on stereotypes, caregiver discrimination has widespread economic, [5] and health effects on workers, particularly for women, LGBTQ+ people, and low-wage workers. [3] Overall, there is a financial impact that follows being a family caregiver. In a 2020 study of family caregivers by the National Alliance on Caregiving, 45 percent of participants reported having at least one financial impact. [4]

State and Federal laws

Although federal law prohibits employment discrimination through a number of statutes such as the VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal law does not explicitly prohibit discrimination toward working caregivers. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has published enforcement guidelines on caregiver discrimination, specifically how assumptions and adverse employment action can violate current federal law. [6] However, some states have passed laws to prohibit employers from discriminating against caregivers. These states include Alaska, Delaware, Minnesota, and New York. [3]

State laws

Alaska: Employers are prohibited from discriminating against an employee or applicant based on their parenthood status. [7]

Delaware: Discriminating against an employee based on their family responsibilities is illegal under the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act. Delaware code defines "family responsibilities" as responsibilities an employee has when caring for a family member who would qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act. [8] Employers with four or more employees are covered.

Minnesota: According to Sec. 363A.08, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees based on 'family status.' [9]

New York: Sec. 296(a) of Unlawful Discriminatory Practices includes 'familial status' under the list of protected groups for which employers cannot discriminate against. [10]

Federal legislative activity

As stated, there are currently no federal laws that explicitly prohibit FRD. Caregivers are indirectly covered under a number of federal laws stated earlier. However, lawmakers have introduced legislation. The Protecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act introduced by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)  if signed into law would prohibit discrimination against employees for their caregiving responsibilities, prohibit employer retaliation if the employee seeks enforcement measures, and establish a grant program to aid in combating caregiver discrimination. [11] This legislation has been endorsed by major advocacy organizations, such as National Employment Law Project (NELP), The National Alliance for Caregiving, and the National Women’s Law Center. [12]

Protecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act Legislative History
CongressShort TitleBill NumberDate IntroducedSponsorsNumber of CosponsorsLatest Status
116th CongressProtecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act of 2020S. 387806/03/2020Cory Booker (D-NJ)0Died in Committee
117th CongressProtecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act of 2022S. 513611/29/2022Cory Booker (D-NJ)0Died in Committee

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</span> United States government agency enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967</span> United States labor law

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is a United States labor law that forbids employment discrimination against anyone, at least 40 years of age, in the United States. In 1967, the bill was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The ADEA prevents age discrimination and provides equal employment opportunity under the conditions that were not explicitly covered in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act also applies to the standards for pensions and benefits provided by employers, and requires that information concerning the needs of older workers be provided to the general public.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

Pregnancy discrimination is a type of employment discrimination that occurs when expectant women are fired, not hired, or otherwise discriminated against due to their pregnancy or intention to become pregnant. Common forms of pregnancy discrimination include not being hired due to visible pregnancy or likelihood of becoming pregnant, being fired after informing an employer of one's pregnancy, being fired after maternity leave, and receiving a pay dock due to pregnancy. Pregnancy discrimination may also take the form of denying reasonable accommodations to workers based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Pregnancy discrimination has also been examined to have an indirect relationship with the decline of a mother's physical and mental health. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women prohibits dismissal on the grounds of maternity or pregnancy and ensures right to maternity leave or comparable social benefits. The Maternity Protection Convention C 183 proclaims adequate protection for pregnancy as well. Though women have some protection in the United States because of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it has not completely curbed the incidence of pregnancy discrimination. The Equal Rights Amendment could ensure more robust sex equality ensuring that women and men could both work and have children at the same time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs</span> U.S. federal government agency

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is part of the U.S. Department of Labor. OFCCP is responsible for ensuring that employers doing business with the Federal government comply with the laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination. This mission is based on the underlying principle that employment opportunities generated by Federal dollars should be available to all Americans on an equitable and fair basis.

Employment discrimination is a form of illegal discrimination in the workplace based on legally protected characteristics. In the U.S., federal anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination by employers against employees based on age, race, gender, sex, religion, national origin, and physical or mental disability. State and local laws often protect additional characteristics such as marital status, veteran status and caregiver/familial status. Earnings differentials or occupational differentiation—where differences in pay come from differences in qualifications or responsibilities—should not be confused with employment discrimination. Discrimination can be intended and involve disparate treatment of a group or be unintended, yet create disparate impact for a group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal employment opportunity</span> Protection of US employees from types of employment discrimination

Equal employment opportunity is equal opportunity to attain or maintain employment in a company, organization, or other institution. Examples of legislation to foster it or to protect it from eroding include the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to assist in the protection of United States employees from discrimination. The law was the first federal law designed to protect most US employees from employment discrimination based on that employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories." The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1959, codified as Government Code §§12900 - 12996, is a California statute used to fight sexual harassment and other forms of unlawful discrimination in employment and housing, which was passed on September 18, 1959.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

A protected group, protected class (US), or prohibited ground (Canada) is a category by which people qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In Canada and the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment and housing. Where illegal discrimination on the basis of protected group status is concerned, a single act of discrimination may be based on more than one protected class. For example, discrimination based on antisemitism may relate to religion, ethnicity, national origin, or any combination of the three; discrimination against a pregnant woman might be based on sex, marital status, or both.

Employment Law is an Israeli law passed in 1988, that prohibits the employer from discriminating between job applicants or employees on the following criteria:

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

Genetic testing is the analysis of human genes, proteins, and certain metabolites, in order to detect inherited disease-related propensities. These tests can predict the risk of disease in adults, as well as establish prenatal and infant prognoses. The benefits can be substantial, but so can the risks. The possible adverse consequences of genetic tests include discrimination in employment and health insurance and breaches of privacy. Government policies are therefore needed to assure the proper use of genetic tests. The first piece of federal legislation came into effect in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981), is a United States labor law case concerning discrimination and the lower standards of protection for gender pay because of the Bennett Amendment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §703(h).

The maternal wall is a term referring to stereotypes and various forms of discrimination encountered by working mothers and mothers seeking employment. Women hit the maternal wall when they encounter workplace discrimination because of past, present, or future pregnancies or because they have taken one or more maternity leaves. Women may also be discriminated against when they opt for part-time or flexible work schedules. Maternal wall discrimination is not limited to childcare responsibilities. Both men and women with caregiving responsibilities, such as taking care of a sick parents or spouse, may also result in maternal wall discrimination. As such, maternal wall discrimination is also described as family responsibilities discrimination. Research suggests that the maternal wall is cemented by employer stereotypes and gender expectations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christine E. Dickson</span> American cognitive psychologist

Christine E. Dickson is an American clinical psychologist. For over 20 years, she has specialized in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. She is best known for being a psychotherapist in California and appearing as a featured guest on Tri-Valley Community Television (TV30) where she provides self-help advice on topics such as mindfulness, work-family balance, marital happiness, compassion, trauma recovery, and more. Her psychotherapy practice is located in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the result of the employment decision.

<i>Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co.</i>

Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292, is a US employment discrimination law case concerning bona fide occupational qualifications. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The law contains an exception for bona fide occupational qualifications, allowing businesses to hire on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin in instances where it is a qualification reasonably necessary for their operations. Bona fide occupational qualifications are qualities or attributes that employers are allowed to consider when hiring employees, which would otherwise be considered illegal discrimination in other circumstances.

References

  1. ↑ "Family Caregiver Discrimination". WorkLife Law. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
  2. ↑ "The COVID-19 Pandemic and Caregiver Discrimination Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws". US EEOC. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
  3. 1 2 3 "At-A-Glance: Family Caregiver Discrimination - State Innovation Exchange". 2022-09-01. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Jr, Steven May (2020-05-11). "Caregiving in the US 2020 | The National Alliance for Caregiving". www.caregiving.org. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
  5. 1 2 Henle, Christine A.; Fisher, Gwenith G.; McCarthy, Jean; Prince, Mark A.; Mattingly, Victoria P.; Clancy, Rebecca L. (2020-02-01). "Eldercare and Childcare: How Does Caregiving Responsibility Affect Job Discrimination?". Journal of Business and Psychology. 35 (1): 59–83. doi:10.1007/s10869-019-09618-x. ISSN   1573-353X.
  6. ↑ "Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities". US EEOC. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
  7. ↑ Alaska Department of Administration. "Policy on Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity" (PDF).
  8. ↑ "Title 19 Delaware Labor Code Chapter 7: Employment Practices".
  9. ↑ "363A.08 UNFAIR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OR UNFAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE". 2022.
  10. ↑ "Section 296 Unlawful discriminatory practices". NY State Senate. Retrieved 2023-04-25.
  11. ↑ Protecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination Act. 117th Cong. (2022). https://www.booker.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/protecting_family_caregivers_from_discrimination_act.pdf
  12. ↑ "Booker Reintroduces Legislation Protecting Family Caregivers from Discrimination | U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey". www.booker.senate.gov. Retrieved 2023-04-18.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.