Art Exhibit Highlights Struggles for Women in the Construction Industry

Here is an article about a riveting art exhibit titled "On Equal Terms." The Exhibit has been featured at Brandeis University, Michigan State University Museum, and Clemente Soto Vélez Cultural Center in Manhattan, but it closes this week. It shows its audience a dark side of the construction industry: the side that continues to harass and discriminate against women in the industry. As the article points out, the construction industry is pretty much the ONLY industry that has NOT seen gains for women in recent decades. Still today, only 2.6% of construction workers are women, and that is the SAME as it was 30 years ago. This art exhibit is interesting in part because it seems to offer its viewers a glimpse of a day in the life of a female construction worker. As you move through it, it seems you would get the chance to experience what it would actually be like on the job--a chance to walk a mile, or even just a step or two, in a female construction worker's work boots. I wish I'd had the chance to see it.

Dangerous Sexism - Colorlines

Gender Equality: Is there an App for That?

Here's another wonderful editorial about gender equality by Natascha McElhone. (This is actually an edited version of a speech she gave at Wired 2013 in London.) She shares a lot of anecdotes of her experiences with sexism which will probably ring true for (or sound familiar to) many of us. She discusses the phenomenon of "casual sexism," which is oft times subtle and is far more pervasive, I would imagine, than any of us realize. One facet of that phenomenon is the casual objectification of women, which, according to McElhone, is sexist primarily because it happens so much more frequently than the converse (the casual objectification of men), and because of the powerless positions in which women are portrayed in sexual images.

And McElhone asks a number of great questions about a variety of issues. Among those most important in my mind are:

"Why should men not garner respect for staying at home for those formative years?"

Undoubtedly an issue worthy of much discussion is the right of men to play a more active role in raising their children and maintaining their households if they so choose. The importance of this issue should be abundantly clear because, as anyone who has thought long and hard about gender equality should realize, women will never and can never play a truly equal role in the workplace until men play a truly equal role at home. Or, in the paraphrased words of Sheryl Sandberg, women can't "lean in" at the board table until men "lean in" at the kitchen table.

Many men are wonderful fathers, and homemakers, but they are never truly given the chance because of the stigma, stereotype, or casual sexism wrapped up in the still prevailing idea that these tasks are women's tasks--and continue to be women's tasks--even as women are expected to contribute equally to the workforce. If you find this insulting to men, then that only proves the point that domestic (and traditionally feminine) roles are demeaned and stigmatized in our society. Maybe a woman makes a free choice to stay home, or a man makes a free choice to bring home the bacon, but until the stigmas are eliminated for both sexes, no one can really make a choice that is completely free. And, in my view, this is the area in which WOMEN are the most guilty of contributing to the problem of gender inequality, by refusing to let their male partners play a more active role at home. You have to step back if you want them to step up. I only know this because I have been quite guilty of this myself!

Here was another of my favorite excerpts from McElhone's piece: "If I were a journalist, I would ask every man I interviewed if he was worried about his hair loss, his weight, how he managed his work/home balance, what his neuroses were – and skip over the content of what he actually did."

Ha. I would pay to see that. This is of course hilarious because this is usually what happens when the media interviews many women; they ask them about their appearance and not about their accomplishments--even women as accomplished as Hillary Clinton, which is presumably what brought them onto the show in the first place.

Natascha McElhone: It's Time to Find an App for Gender Equality

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Settles Sex Discrimination Suit

A female border protection agent in upstate Maine, who worked at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Coburn Gore facility near the Canadian border, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for sex discrimination after suffering years of bullying at work based on her gender. This woman's charming male supervisor allegedly made numerous comments to her about how a woman's place is in the kitchen where she'd better have dinner "hot and ready." She also made allegations of incidents of physical harassment in addition to the ongoing verbal harassment, and she claimed she was eventually terminated from her job on trumped up charges.

Well, lucky for her boss, she had a lawsuit "hot and ready" for him! And now Customs has settled the case for $285,000. Unfortunately, the nasty boss still works there, seemingly with no real consequences or repercussions (an all too common occurrence), and she is now working as a store clerk. Hopefully this money will help her get back on her feet and back into law enforcement where she wants to be.

Maine Border Protection Agent Wins Six-Figure Discrimination Settlement - mpbn.net

Former Highest-Ranking Female Executive at Booz Allen Hamilton Settles Sex Discrimination Suit

At one time, Molly Finn was the highest-ranking female executive at large defense contracting company Booz Allen Hamilton. This is a company where only about 20% of the partners are female. Ms. Finn, who began working at Booz in 1986, claims that the higher she got up in the ranks, the more discrimination she experienced, because of what she and others call a glass ceiling, which seeks to get rid of women before they advance any further. (We wouldn't want them taking over the company, aahhh!) Ms. Finn says that another executive at the company told her to "stop saying 'pro-woman, feminist things'" if she wanted to keep her job. Eventually, Booz fired her in 2010. She filed suit in 2011 and has now settled the suit. Naturally, Booz has admitted no wrongdoing, but a female spokeswoman for the company did point out that, "The higher you go in the firm . . . the risk is higher." The risk of what exactly? The risk of a discriminatory termination, maybe? Hm, cryptic words indeed from a company woman.

Another female executive of Booz, Margo Fitzpatrick, who began working at Booz in 1999, was also fired in 2010 and also filed suit in 2011 for the same reasons. Her suit is ongoing.

Booz Allen Hamilton Settles Lawsuit with Former High-Ranking Female Executive - The Washington Post

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Dismissal and Revives Case Against Family Dollar Stores

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has given the pay discrimination class action against Family Dollar Stores, Inc. a second chance. Fifty-one female store managers of Family Dollar brought suit in federal court in Alabama against Family Dollar, claiming they were paid less than male store managers for doing the same work. Family Dollar then got the case transferred to a different court in North Carolina. Family Dollar then filed a motion for judgment against the Plaintiffs, arguing that the Plaintiffs could not meet the requirements for class action certification under the federal rules.

During this time, another major class action for gender discrimination was going on, the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case. Dukes v. Wal-Mart was a class action sex discrimination case brought on behalf of 1.5 MILLION female employees of Wal-Mart. At the time, that case had been reversed in favor of the Plaintiffs by the Ninth Circuit on the class action certification issue, but Wal-Mart took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court for . . . ahem  . . . further consideration . . . .

Meanwhile, in the Family Dollar case, the trial court in North Carolina originally denied Family Dollar's motion for judgment against the Plaintiffs. HOWEVER, it appears that Family Dollar succeeded in getting the case transferred to yet another different judge who would . . . ahem . . . maybe see the case differently. And indeed the new judge did. That is because, while the case was being stalled and moved around to different courts and different judges (it appears here that Family Dollar's attorneys may have been stalling for time and awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Wal-Mart case), the Supreme Court reversed that Ninth Circuit's decision in Wal-Mart and threw out the Plaintiff's class action claims.

The Court in Wal-Mart held that the Plaintiffs could not meet the commonality requirement for class action certification where they were all from different districts and the decisions that were allegedly discriminatory were made by different district managers. In other words, as relevant to Family Dollar, if one manager decides to pay you less because you're a woman, and a different manager decides to pay somebody else less because she is a woman, your claim does not have enough in common with the other woman's claim, even though you are working for the same company and have the same claims, because there are different decision makers involved, so you cannot bring the claims together in the same law suit (or at least not as a class action).

Well, the trial court in the Family Dollar case cited the new Wal-Mart decision when it threw out the Plaintiffs' claims by granting Family Dollar's motion for judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their Complaint, thereby axing their entire case. This was despite the fact that the Wal-Mart decision essentially added new and additional requirements to what must be included in the Plaintiffs' original complaint, but the Plaintiffs were not allowed to correct their original Complaint to account for those new requirements. The OTHER Catch-22 of course, was the fact that the Plaintiffs in Family Dollar were alleging that it was the centralized corporate policies of Family Dollar that led to the pay discrimination (the same policies in every district), yet they were never given the chance to pursue that theory or those allegations. The ultimate Catch-22 with these cases (and with all the new and additional pleadings requirements being erected by the courts in recent years, the overall point of which, imho, is just to make it more difficult for individuals to sue big corporations), is that one cannot prove one's theories in the absence of discovery during litigation (the process by which the parties obtain information from the other side to prove their respective theories of the case), yet they are never given the chance to engage in any discovery which they would need to prove their case, because their claims are axed at the outset, based on the fact that they have not put enough established information (a.k.a PROOF that they don't yet have) IN THEIR COMPLAINTS! Argh.

So, on the basis of Wal-Mart, the trial court in Family Dollar finally axed the Plaintiffs' claims.

BUT THEN, in came the Fourth Circuit, which REVERSED the trial court's denial of the Plaintiffs' request to amend their Complaint. As the Fourth Circuit observed, even if lower level managers are making different subjective and discriminatory decisions, they are not the ones setting the policies for the entire corporation, so if the policies themselves are discriminatory, then that equates to commonality for class action purposes. And, as the Court also noted, the Plaintiffs were alleging that higher level managers were also making discriminatory decisions that affected multiple districts and plaintiffs. Again, commonality. The court used these and other facts to distinguish the Wal-Mart case from the Family Dollar case. Simply put, the Plaintiffs should at least get the CHANCE to make the allegations they need to make to satisfy the Wal-Mart class action requirements (which, imho, are now essentially new and additional requirements which are NOT set forth in the federal class action rule), because giving them that chance is "necessary to ensure meaningful review."

The Court also shot down Family Dollar's arguments that allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint would be prejudicial to Family Dollar. The Court pointed out that Family Dollar cannot turn around and claim prejudice now when Family Dollar was the one prolonging the litigation all along. Bam. Eat it and like it, Fortune 500 friends!

So now the Plaintiffs can amend their complaint and revive the class action lawsuit. Thank you, Fourth Circuit! Here is a link the the Fourth Circuit's opinion:

Luanna Scott et al v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. - Bloomberg Law

And for point-and-counterpoint purposes, here is a pro-corporate rant about how horrible this decision was:

Supreme Disregard in Scott v. Family Dollar - The Wall Street Journal

Now, we can probably expect Family Dollar to try to take it up with the Supreme Court. . . .

Sushi Den in Denver, CO Faces Charges of Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

Four employees of Sushi Den in Denver, CO have filed Charges of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the restaurant for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. (Note: The news refers to suing and complaints, but that is somewhat incorrect as this is just an administrative charge and NOT a lawsuit, YET.)  Some of the allegations are that male owners and managers told the women they were not as smart as males and lacked the common sense of men. There are also allegations of systemic failure to promote women to management and chef positions and incidents of physical touching and lewd remarks.

Sushi Den Named in EEOC Complaint for Sexual Harassment - The Denver Post

Sushi Den: Investigator Discredits Female Employees’ Discrimination Complaint - kdvr.com

Well, shoot, thankfully these women at least have the SMARTS and COMMON SENSE to pursue their claims! That's all I can say. Dang! I have only eaten at this restaurant once, many years ago, but it is supposedly one of the best sushi restaurants in Denver. I did read somewhere, though, that they had ongoing issues with food and safety inspections as well:

Denver’s Top Health Code Violators Revealed - kdvr.com.

It may be be better when you find yourself in the Mile High City to drink your sake somewhere else!

Female Bartender in L.A. Files Suit Alleging She Was Fired For Being Pregnant and for not Dressing Like a Hooker

The King's Head Pub II on Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA is facing a lawsuit by a former bartender who says she was fired after her boss found out she was pregnant and that the boss also said she dressed too conservatively and not enough like a "California hooker" because she wore pants instead of miniskirts. Yes, I think it has been quite a while since women won the right to wear pants to work and to procreate AND work, too!

Pregnant Studio City Bartender Fired Because She Wore Pants, Didn’t Look Like ‘California Hooker,’ Suit Alleges - Los Angeles Daily News

Female Deputy Sheriff Files Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Complaint in Madison County, Tennessee

A female deputy sheriff in Madison County, Tennessee has filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Sheriff's Department, alleging that a male deputy sheriff sexually harassed her for years. This article does not really provide many specific facts, but the video does reveal that there was allegedly some physical violence which led to the police being called to the female deputy's home and led the courts to grant a temporary protection order against the alleged harasser in order to keep the female deputy safe. Yikes! One can only imagine.

Deputy Alleges Years of Sexual Harassment From Sheriff - wbbjtv.com

United States Sues Industrial Labor Management Group, Inc. (ILM) in Nashville, TN for Gender Discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued Industrial Labor Management Group, Inc. (ILM) in Nashville, TN for gender discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that ILM, a temporary staffing agency, refused to place qualified female applicants in positions because of their gender. It further alleges that ILM directly told a female applicant that certain jobs in warehouses were only for men.

EEOC SUES Employment Staffing Agency ILM for Sex-Based Hiring Discrimination - EEOC Press Release

Mormon Women Protest for the Right to Become Priests

Mormon ladies are getting feisty! A Mormon activist group called Ordain Women organized a group of some 150 Mormon women and their supporters at an all-male convention of Mormon priests. The women were turned away. I wonder how long it will be before Mormons level the playing (or preaching) field. For that matter, I wonder how long it will be before these women realize that these religions are inherently sexist and they can simply start their own religion! But who am I to say they should not still fight for equality within their existing establishment? By all means, preach on, ladies.

Mormon Officials Turn Away 150 Female Members From All-male Conference - The Raw Story

EEOC Sues Newport News Industrial Corp. for Firing Female Employee After She Complained About Gender Discrimination

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued Newport News Industrial Corporation for retaliating against a female employee by firing her after she complained about gender discrimination. Newport News Industrial is headquartered in Newport News, VA, but these events took place at the Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant in Southport, NC. EEOC filed suit in NC.

EEOC Sues Newport News Industrial Corporation for Unlawful Retaliation - EEOC Press Release

Female Police Officer in Pennsylvania Sues for Harassment and Discrimination

A female police officer in Mount Oliver, PA has sued the police department there for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and other claims. She was the only female officer on the force in Mount Oliver. The lawsuit alleges that this officer was bullied and sexually harassed for years. She alleges she was barged in the bathroom by a male officer, and the department refused to put a working lock on the door to prevent this from happening. She alleges that instead of putting a lock on the bathroom door as requested (so they wouldn't keep catching her with her pants down), they assigned her to clean the bathrooms. You know, because lady cops are really just maids. There are many other allegations too, but I thought the bathroom-barging was interesting. She must not have been doing a good enough job cleaning the toilets, because they allegedly denied her promotions and ultimately fired her after that. Wow, tough place to be a lady cop.

Woman Who Was Only Female Mount Oliver Police Officer Sues Claiming Discrimination - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

EEOC Sues Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center for Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center (located in the Chicago area) for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. EEOC alleges that the company cut the hours of one of its social workers after finding out she was pregnant and then later fired her for complaining about it, during her maternity leave. These allegations, if proven, are violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

EEOC Sues Midway Neurological & Rehabilitation Center for Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation - EEOC Press Release

Harvard Business School Tackles Gender Inequality

In this in-depth article, former female students of the Harvard Business School discuss the unbelievably sexist environment they survived. They recall it was even worse than the sexist environments at the financial companies on Wall Street (like BoA/Merrill Lynch). Male students would haze them, threaten them, and all of this was allowed by the school. The biggest problem was the dramatic gap in academic performance between men and women, because women lived in an environment where they were afraid to speak up, and class participation was 50% of the grade. (Test scores, on the other hand, were comparable.)

Things finally changed when Harvard finally hired a female President for the first time ever. The school started holding things like "Hand Raising Seminars," teaching women how to be more assertive in class. When the school finally began to focus on equality and helping women feel safe and succeed, poof! The academic gap disappeared.

Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity - New York Times

Bank of America Pays Out $39 Million for Gender Discrimination

Bank of America (BoA) has settled the gender discrimination case filed against it for $39 million. The suit was brought by about 4,800 female brokers and financial advisors who worked for both BoA and Merrill Lynch (which BoA acquired). What a huge settlement! Sadly, it's probably just a drop in the bucket for Behemoth BoA.

Bank of America to Pay $39 Million in Gender Bias Case - New York Times

Bank of America Settles Gender Bias Suit - Washington Post

Is NASA Discriminating Against Female Astronauts by Setting Lower Radiation Thresholds for Women?

Some female astronauts would say so.

Well, you know what they say: "One small step for MAN, one giant leap for MANkind." But what happens when a WOMAN wants to take a step, too? She is told that her body is not designed to handle radiation in the way that a man's is, so it's more dangerous for her to go into space. This is basically what NASA is telling female astronauts, and as a result, they are denied equal opportunities in the workplace.

Female Astronauts Said To Face Discrimination Over NASA's Space Radiation Concerns - Huffington Post

NASA claims women cannot handle as much radiation exposure as men, and they claim this is based on NASA's own physiological models. Apparently though, these models are based on 1945 data from Hiroshima:

Female Astronauts Face Discrimination from Space Radiation Concerns, Astronauts Say - Space.com

1945 data that has nothing to do with outer space, wow! Pretty scientific, huh?

NASA also claims that it is merely following the limits set by the National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). As it turns out, these limits are set at about 20% lower for women, which results in a 45-50% percent loss of professional opportunities for women astronauts!

NASA claims the levels are set differently because of the risk of breast, ovarian, and uterine cancer in women. Okay, but aren't there several kinds of cancers that occur only in men as well?

Whether or not this is actually a legitimate biological difference between men and women (tolerance to radiation exposure, that is) is, I suppose, something only NASA and NCRP can know (?). I'm not a scientist, but it seems like a pretty strange notion to me that women's bodies are innately less evolutionarily equipped to handle radiation. It would make sense to me if you were talking about pregnant women, but you know many women never become pregnant! By choice! So that would not apply. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to sign up for that much radiation. But if someone wants to make that choice, I say don't stop them just because of their gender.

United States Sues New York Company Vamco Sheet Metals for Sex Discrimination

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of the United States Government has sued Vamco Sheet Metals of New York on behalf of female sheet metal workers for treating those workers differently than their male counterparts because of their sex. The EEOC alleges that the company fired the female employees after they sought help from the union for unequal treatment, which treatment included assigning them to demeaning tasks like fetching the bosses' coffee, counting the time they spent in the bathroom, and denying them the right to pump breast milk. Good luck to these courageous women!

EEOC Sues Company Over Firing of Female Sheet Metal Workers - Business Insurance