About Us

By Samantha Mc Lane

Equal Pay Day is a movement that aims for the benefit of all working women in the United States without exception. However, as incredible as it is that gender inequity still persists in this century, inequity and differences remain between races, national origin and legal status. The statistics say it: Latinas earn 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men and even less than Latin men, falling in the most underpaid group.

Why? Besides living under cultural stereotypes, people underestimating our capabilities and intelligence, difficulties in accessing benefits programs for ourselves and our family, and fear of deportation in case of illegal immigrant women. Even if we are lucky enough to get a job, why should we be receiving less salary than anybody else?

We Latinas are at the bottom of the ladder but there is the possibility to go up. We can begin by taking interest because our work, time, personal and professional projects and our lives are worthwhile. If we don´t care, no one else will.

It is a fact that to achieve the goal not only is it necessary to deconstruct cultural and systemic ideologies about women’s condition, social institutions, to question authority and the use of power, but also to take advantage of these kinds of opportunities in the legal field to strengthen equal pay laws including the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Equal Pay Act. It is an excellent opportunity to use the regulations that this country provides, thanks to the efforts of many women that have fought before, and to keep reminding and raising social awareness of this situation.

We have a voice, let´s use it to be recognized. Get informed about the actions to be done, get in contact with other women, people and groups interested in the subject, be active and demand equal payment because we have the right.

Posted on April 29th, 2008 by Samantha Mc Lane
Filed under: Opinion, Race Discrimination, Commentary, Politics, All Posts | No Comments »

Today is being observed as Equal Pay Day (the point in 2008 when the average woman’s wages finally catch up with what the average man earned in 2007). As ceremonious as it may sound, its apt to look at the statistics once again with hope and protest.

Women in the US, working full-time, year-round earn only about 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. The median annual earnings of women ages 15 and older are $31,858, compared to $41,386 for their male counterparts. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States)

Minority women fare significantly worse. An African American woman earns just 64 cents for every dollar earned by a white man, while a Hispanic woman earns only 52 cents on the dollar compared to her white male counterpart. The median earnings of African American women working full-time, year-round are $29,6805 compared to $46,4376 for white men; the median for Hispanic women are only $24,214. (Source: National Women’s Law Center)

One year out of college, women working full time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn.

Likewise, Mothers are more likely than fathers (or other women) to work part time, take leave, or take a break from the work force—factors that negatively affect wages. Among women who graduated from college in 1992–93, more than one-fifth (23 percent) of mothers were out of the work force in 2003, and another 17 percent were working part time. Less than 2 percent of fathers were out of the work force in 2003, and less than 2 percent were working part time. On average, mothers earn less than women without children earn, and both groups earn less than men earn. (Source: Behind Pay Gap, 2007, AAUW)

Addressing such glaring inequalities, and highlighting the need for immediate and effective legislation to ensure fair pay, Jack Tuckner, Esq., testified at the NYC Counclil on the Need for Gender Pay Equity Legislation yesterday, which I am reproducing in full below:

I’m Jack Tuckner, of Tuckner, Sipser, Weinstock & Sipser, LLP, Women’s Rights in the Workplace Advocates. We champion the cause of working women who find themselves in some form of diminished state within their own workplaces, simply because of their gender. Women have it tougher than men. As former Presidential Candidate Shirley Chisholm famously said, “Of my two handicaps, being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black.” Pregnancy Discrimination cases are on the rise, sexual harassment and sexual abuse cases are holding their own, the glass ceiling has been replaced with steel-strength polymers and the mommy track is running all off-peak local trains to the workplace pink ghetto. Women have it tougher than men.

Last year, in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire Co., our mean-spirited majority US Supreme Court scoffed at the concept of equal pay for equal work when it showed the door to Ms. Ledbetter because she had the audacity, the sheer, unseemly discourtesy, to stand up and speak out for her right to be equal. It had nothing to do with missing the statute of limitations period 16 years before when she couldn’t have possibly known of the discrimination. And the result actually encourages litigation, as every woman who senses she may be paid less than men performing equal work must dash off to file a precipitous complaint just in case her hunch proves true. The magnitude of unmitigated cynicism and misogynistic leanings that would compel that kind of harmful, tortured logic is truly impressive and hard to comprehend in the absence of malice and avarice.

Our reactionary political environment is hostile to all progressive notions of fairness, equality and equal access to justice and power. Our most esteemed judicial tribunal, the Supreme Court, is openly contemptuous of an individual citizen’s right to speak truth to power, to question authority, to hold corporaticians accountable for their excesses, if not their crimes. As a nation, we’ve morphed from a Democracy into a Corporatocracy, as BBB’s (Big Business Behemoths), aided and abetted by our corporate media, have redistributed wealth and power upward toward itself and away from us. We’re all commodities and we’re all for sale; we’ll even sell our own teenage daughters in Girls Gone Wild videos on prime-time network television. And people of color, and the GLBT community, and people with disabilities, and people in prison for using drugs unapproved by the pharmaceutical/medical complex, all have less value. And of course, women—women have less value than men. Women have lower human capital than men. Women. Our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our wives, our girlfriends, our selves. Women consistently suffer degraded terms and conditions of employment based on sex alone and women regularly experience corporate retaliation when they do finally have their Rosa Parks moment and refuse to accept the fate chosen for them by others.

What can we do about it? We can and must insist on legally required equal treatment. We can insist that we not be objectified at work. We can insist that our leaders must care about more than profit and loss statements, and we can insist that they appoint judges who actually heed the rule of law with a view toward determining truth and fairness. Judges who would care that the legislative intent of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII was to serve the fundamental purpose of eliminating pay discrimination, as opposed to straining for reasons to deny redress as it may actually require the administration of justice. We must bring a certain male energy to the quest for remediation. We must be assertive, if not downright aggressive. To paraphrase Pulitzer winner Laura Thatcher Ulrich, “well-behaved women (and the men who admire them) rarely make history.”

In our ongoing struggle for true economic parity between men and women, the laws are our weapons and the courts our battlefields. Without the weaponry of our laws, we lose all the battles and the war by default. We never even get to leave the house. We surrender to the vagaries and whimsy of those who would rule us. The two federal laws offering protection on the basis of sex, The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and The Civil Rights Act of 1964, are famously complicated statutes, requiring different standards, tests and shifting burdens. These laws confound even federal court judges let alone the average would-be Plaintiff or juror. In the Ledbetter decision, the Supreme Court has effectively eviscerated the law in its entirety, ruling that the Equal Pay Act is only available to those fleet-of-feet women who race to the courthouse door within 180 days of the first violation of the law. Never mind that the Court disingenuously rejected the fact that most women, such as Lilly Ledbetter, could not possibly have known of the pay violation when it first occurred, and the injustices not only continued unabated, but of course increased exponentially with each new paycheck violation over the many years. No justice for you, ungrateful, indelicate girl.

So, we need to enact new laws to empower working women replete with full wage disclosure elements as well as an enforcement mechanism with teeth. We need to continue to impolitely insist on our right to be paid equally and we must insist on expanded Family Responsibility legal protections so men and women may share domestic and familial responsibilities as a team. The Ledbetter decision has done considerable damage already. Roughly 175 state and federal courts have already cited the decision in cases that inflict one injustice after another on individual employees and their families, and Ledbetter was just decided 11 months ago. More government largess (and corporate welfare) for needy multinational conglomerates.

The Fair Pay Restoration Act (the Senate counterpart to The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which has already passed the House) clarifies Congress’ original intent in Equal Pact Act cases that every unequal paycheck should count as a discriminatory act that supports a lawsuit under Title VII.

The NYS Fair Pay Act would provide workers in NY with a strong, enforceable state law to prohibit companies from paying employees less because of gender and race. The Act provides freedom of speech for all New York state employees regarding their salaries. Employees will be able to share salary information with co-workers without fear of reprisal. It also assures that in positions where women and people of color predominate, equal pay for work of equal value will be the rule of law.
Both bills routinely pass in the federal and state House and Assembly, respectively, but stall or die before the Senate. We don’t need another “study” to determine if there’s a gender pay gap. Let’s continue to use our charms and powers of persuasion to convince those within our circles of influence that it’s time for true equality. And in an expanding Corporatocracy, equality is mostly measured by the devalued US Currency that you can command.

Presented by:
Jack Tuckner, Esq.
Tuckner, Sipser, Weinstock & Sipser, LLP
Women’s Rights in the Workplace Advocacy
120 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10271
212.766.9100
http://womensrightsny.com
jtuckner@womensrightsny.com

What happened to me is not only an insult to my dignity, but it had real consequences for my ability to care for my family. Every paycheck I received, I got less than what I was entitled to under the law. The Supreme Court said that this didn’t count as illegal discrimination, but it sure feels like discrimination when you are on the receiving end of that smaller paycheck and trying to support your family with less money than the men are getting for doing the same job. And according to the Court, if you don’t figure things out right away, the company can treat you like a second-class citizen for the rest of your career. That isn’t right. : Lilly Ledbetter

Posted on April 18th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, Gender Discrimination, Opinion, Media, Commentary, Politics, All Posts | No Comments »

The blog entry can be found here.

Posted on April 16th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: Blogroll, News, Gender Discrimination, Media, Politics, All Posts | No Comments »

BOB ROSNER for ABC News asks to Keep Detailed Records and Don’t Be Afraid to Make a Scene

Dear WOUNDED: A co-worker says offensive things to me daily. I just don’t know how to shut him up.

ANSWER: Harassment shouldn’t be in anyone’s job description. But before we offer strategies to address harassment, we want to tell you about the “Annoy-a-tron.” This little slice of heaven for office pranksters is a tiny circuit board that you can hide in a plant or under a desk that emits an annoying beep. Because that just wasn’t annoying enough, the beeps go off randomly, so the little bugger is really hard to find.

Sounds like you’ve got you own Annoy-a-tron at work and unfortunately, you’re not alone. According to a recent survey, sexually explicit comments in the workplace have doubled in the past year. This shouldn’t be a surprise, considering 5 of the top 10 Google searches are sexually explicit. Freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to be offensive at work. We offer strategies for confronting a harassing coworker. For more, check out “Sexual Harassment on the Job” by Bill Petrocelli and Barbara K. Repa (Nolo, 1999).

There are some steps to take before you say word one to your harasser. Find a supportive ear with your boss, human resources department or your union. Your goal should be to develop rapport with them, not to report the harasser. You’ll also want to document what happened to you with dates and details. If this situations turns into a real drama, you’ll need a detailed record of what happened.

We may refuse to confront for fear of being seen as a prude or weak or humorless or hypersensitive or a tattletale, and the list goes on. According to Petrocelli and Repa, up to 90 percent of low- to mid-level harassment stops when you directly confront the harasser. So you can often end the harassment. You shouldn’t have to struggle to get your job done because of this kind of abuse.

Your harasser may be a jerk who is trying to offend you. Or he may be someone who is unconsciously causing a problem. That’s why it’s important to communicate your displeasure.

Subtle body language probably won’t register. Humor and “I feel” statements are probably also too soft. Look him directly in the eyes, without a smile describe the specific behavior you find offensive and then ask him to stop it. His comments or actions are directly affecting you so address him just as directly.

It’s really tempting to want to publicly humiliate the offending party, but you don’t want to go there. You get to set the example of respect here. Make certain you’re away from co-workers and management when you confront a co-worker.
Read more…

Posted on April 10th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, Sexual Harassment, Media, All Posts | 1 Comment »

How common is weight discrimination? Very, as a recent survey finds:

Amy Norton writes for Reuters Health - Discrimination against the overweight may be about as prevalent as racial discrimination, the results of a survey of U.S. adults suggest.

Using data from a survey of nearly 2,300 Americans, researchers at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut found that 5 percent of men and 10 percent of women said they had faced discrimination because of their weight — ranging from job refusals to rude treatment in everyday life.

Among respondents who were severely obese — having a body mass index

(BMI) of 35 or higher — 40 percent reported instances of weight discrimination. A body mass index is the ratio between height and weight commonly used to classify individuals as over- or underweight.

Weight bias also rivaled the prevalence of other, long-recognized forms of discrimination, the researchers report in the International Journal of Obesity.

Among women, weight discrimination was the third most common form, behind sex and age discrimination. Among all adults, it came in fourth overall, after sex, age and racial discrimination.

The findings point to a need for “organized efforts” to combat weight bias, the researchers note in their report.

“In order to reduce weight bias, we need major shifts in societal attitudes,” lead researcher Dr. Rebecca M. Puhl told Reuters Health.

This would include building awareness of weight discrimination and its consequences, Puhl noted, as well as improving media portrayals of obese individuals. Overweight people should also have legal protection against discrimination, she said.

The findings are based on a nationally representative sample of 2,290 Americans ages 25 to 74 who were surveyed between 1995 and 1996.

Respondents were asked whether they had ever been victims of discrimination based on race, religion, sex or various other reasons, including weight.

Of the men and women who reported weight discrimination, 60 percent said they had experienced work-related discrimination, such as not being hired, being passed over for promotion, or being wrongly fired.

Many also cited day-to-day types of discrimination, like being treated with less respect or courtesy than others, or being “perceived as inferior.” And compared with victims of other forms of discrimination, those subjected to weight bias were more likely to say they had been called names or overtly insulted.

Women were particularly likely to perceive weight bias, with twice as many women as men reporting such discrimination.

This may not be surprising, according to Puhl, given the “stringent and unrealistic ideals of thinness that are placed on women in North America.”

Indeed, the study found that women seemed to be vulnerable to weight discrimination even if they were moderately overweight, whereas only severely obese men reported discrimination at a rate comparable with their female counterparts.

“This means we need to be especially aware of the negative experiences and effects of weight bias among females,” Puhl said.

Posted on April 10th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, Media, All Posts | No Comments »

‘Learned the degree of pain’ from community
Todd A. Heywood writes for Between The Lines News - Issue 1615

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign in Washington D.C., told BTL last week that he and his organization stood by their decision to support a non-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act bill on the House floor, but they had underestimated the pain such an action would cause.

“What we learned obviously was the degree of pain that it was going to cause in the community,” Solmonese said during a wide ranging 45 minute interview.

“For all of the rational arguments about this as a building block towards something bigger, the sentiment particularly in the transgender community that this was code for - you know- ‘we are leaving you behind.”"

Solmonese said he still supports the strategy HRC employed when the House announced it would bring the bill out of committee without gender identity protections in it. That move caused a major fracture in the LBGT community across the country, with transgender activists pointing to Solmonese’s own statement at a gathering in September 2007. During the Southern Comfort transgender conference, Solmonese told those gathered that HRC would not support a non-inclusive ENDA.

But that changed in a few short weeks when the House moved a non-inclusive ENDA from committee to the floor for a vote. At that point, Solmonese said, HRC had to support the bill. It was a matter of “choices” he said, and pointed out that you don’t want a bill to fail on a vote.

“In that context, did I think then that it was best for the community that the bill pass? Yes,” Solmonese said. “Do I still support that position? Yeah. What was best for our community was that the bill pass rather than fail. Sometimes it is hard for people to see the whole picture, but sometimes you are faced with choices.”
a d v e r t i s e m e n t s

“I think when you are in the group that has to wait it, doesn’t feel very good,” said Jackie Simpson, director of the Spectrum Center of the University of Michigan. Simpson was speaking as an individual because she said there were too many opinions on the inclusive ENDA matter to speak for the organization or the University. She said she personally did not support the move by HRC, but also believes that HRC is not against the transgender community. “It’s hard to stomach. It’s easy to intellectually rationalize why its important to move forward.”

Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for Triangle Foundation, a statewide LBGT rights organization, directed his comments to the United ENDA group, composed of over 300 LBGT groups supporting passage of an inclusive ENDA.

“We want HRC to join United ENDA. We are not running around like a bunch of naive people who don’t understand lobbying,” he said. “We believe there is a way to get an inclusive ENDA. It’s not transgender that is the problem, it is the political will. There is no reason for a noninclusive ENDA.”

Julie Nemecek, a transgender activist who serves on the board of Michigan Equality, another Michigan LBGT rights organization, said she remains angry with HRC. She was in attendance at the Southern Comfort conference when Solmonese promised support for an inclusive ENDA.

“He lied to our faces,” she said in a phone interview. “You don’t divide up civil rights issues. It’s entirely inappropriate and just plain wrong.”

What else did HRC learn from the action? Several things according to Solmonese.

“What do you we know? We know that there is - on the heels of this vote - a gap of about 48 seats in the House between people who support a fully inclusive bill and people who support a sexual orientation only bill. What we know and what we are doing now is there are 48 different campaigns that need to be run in those districts to move those individuals and that is what they are doing.”

Solmonese said the results also forced representatives onto the record.

“But again when you put something on the dockets and you force people to go to the floor to vote for it, all of these people who have only functioned in the abstract or answered questions in the abstract now have to get real about it,” he said.

Asked how HRC was going to rebuild trust in the community, Solmonese was clear.

“The only way, and the best way and the only way we can make ourselves relevant in this issue or any issue is through our actions,” he said. “It has to be through our actions and not our words.”

Posted on April 10th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, Gender Discrimination, LGBT, Politics, All Posts | No Comments »

Very informative, and authoritative. Deborah Kotz writes about Pregnancy, Your Weight, and Your Job on US News

Are you planning to get pregnant in the near future? How would I have responded if my prospective boss had asked me this some 13 years ago during a job interview for a medical journal? I did, in fact, become pregnant with my first child soon after landing the position, gratefully took my three months of paid maternity leave, and then negotiated a work-at-home deal. Let’s just say, I’m glad I wasn’t asked.

Many women are, though. I was surprised to learn recently that in 28 states, employers can legally inquire about marital status and childcare responsibilities and make hiring decisions based on the answers—even though federal law prohibits them from rejecting a candidate based solely on gender. Kiki Peppard, a single mother of two who was turned down for more than a dozen jobs after being asked repeatedly about her motherhood status, has launched an effort to get the law changed in Pennsylvania where she lives. According to a recent article in the Allentown Morning Call, one employer admitted to Peppard that he couldn’t hire her because it would cost him too much in health insurance, while another told her that “mothers take too many days off.”

In other happy news, Yale University researchers reported a few weeks ago that weight discrimination on the job and elsewhere is about as common as racial discrimination—particularly among women, who reported that discrimination starts at a body mass index of 27. That translates to 173 pounds for someone who’s 5 feet,7 inches, or just 14 pounds above the “overweight” mark. (Men didn’t face discrimination until their BMI reached 35 or higher, or about 225 pounds for the same height.) And, unlike discrimination for gender, race, or age, it’s not illegal to withhold a promotion based on someone’s weight.
Read more…

Posted on April 10th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, Pregnancy Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, Media, All Posts, Family Responsibilities Discrimination | No Comments »

PageOneQ quotes Whoopi Goldberg on pregnant transgender man

“I found them very sweet and naïve,” veteran anchor Barbara Walters says of the Beatie couple, currently expecting a child. “The greatest threat to them,” Walters adds, “is that their marriage could be taken away.”

Thomas Beatie, a transgender man, recently talked with Oprah Winfrey about his pregnancy. A profile also appears in the April 14 issue of People Magazine. Born a woman, Beatie is legally a man, but still has an intact reproductive system. Six months into his current pregnancy, the child is due in July; the Beaties’ gynecologist expects the baby to be healthy, and ultrasound imaging concurs.

The Beaties have received no compensation for sharing their story.

“It’s so weird,” says Sherri Shepherd. “You don’t want to be a woman, you want to be a man, but you want to do what a woman is doing…which one is it going to be? You can’t be straddling both sides of the fence!…I’m so confused!”

“You’re confused?” adds Elisabeth Hasselbeck. “Wait until this child comes into the world. That child’s going to be a little confused!”

“I think [the Beaties] can explain to the child who is living with them,” Whoopi Goldberg counters. “It is diffcult, I think, for them to explain to people who have never been trapped in the wrong body…We’ve got a black man running for president, he might win: uncharted waters. We’ve got a man who’s having a baby: uncharted waters.

“And there’s years and months of uncharted waters ahead of us. I’m so excited.”

“Some people have exactly the nuclear family that everybody wants,” says Joy Behar. “The father, the mother; he’s two years older than she is, they’re both the same race, the same religion; and they have really screwed up children.

“So, if you have two people who are ‘a little wacky’ like this, but they love their kids and they raise their kids in a loving environment, who cares, really?”

Posted on April 10th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, LGBT, Media, Politics, All Posts | No Comments »

Toyota of Bowie will pay a total of $202,000 to two black men from Landover and Silver Spring to settle a race discrimination suit, said the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Friday.

The EEOC’s lawsuit, filed in 2005, alleges that Charles Dyer of Silver Spring was not hired for the position of sales manager or finance manager in 2004 because of his race. Additionally, the suit alleges Phillip Kennedy of Landover was fired from his position as finance manager in 2004 because of his race.

In the settlement, Toyota of Bowie admits no wrongdoing but will pay $100,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in attorney fees each to both Dyer and Kennedy.

Toyota’s attorney, Steven Nemeroff, said no record of Dyer’s application was on file with the company and Kennedy had been fired within 30 days of his hire for poor performance.

‘‘The personnel records at Toyota of Bowie demonstrate that at least 50 percent of their finance managers in 2004 were black and 57 percent of their sales managers and general sales managers were black,” said Nemeroff in an issued statement. ‘‘During this same time period, Toyota of Bowie routinely hired black sales representatives and promoted black sales representatives to sales managers.”

The company has never been sued for racial discrimination before and decided to settle to avoid the time and expense of continued litigation, Nemeroff said.

The agreement also requires Toyota of Bowie to provide a minimum of four hours training on employment discrimination laws to its vice president, general manager and all other employees responsible for the hiring and firing of sales managers and finance managers.

‘‘It is unfortunate that 44 years after the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers continue to make unlawful employment decisions based on race,” said attorney for the EEOC Jacqueline McNair.

Posted on April 9th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, Race Discrimination, All Posts | No Comments »

Not really strange that Morning Joe found the pregnant transgender man “disgusting”. What is more bothersome is that the anchors were visibly so upset at the news and so absolutely unbelievably shocked that one must cease to wonder why the country is truly headed in wrong direction (81% of Americans believe so, according to latest NYT report).

Mika Brzezinski was at her worst as well, or perhaps this is the real incarnation. Three media representatives attributing slurs and slangs and disgusts at a pregnant person is astoundingly outrageous. Its not that this news was not one could not use. Its such so-called news anchors that the society perhaps cannot find much use of.

Posted on April 9th, 2008 by Saswat Pattanayak
Filed under: News, Pregnancy Discrimination, Gender Discrimination, LGBT, Opinion, Media, Commentary, Politics, All Posts | No Comments »