Working & Caregiving: U.S. Outlaws Discrimination at the "Day Job"
Print
Email
Caring for a family member with Alzheimer's disease is heartbreaking enough, without having to add employer discrimination into the mix. Now the federal government has published a guide that will make it easier for a caregiver to get the help that he or she might also need to fight against discrimination.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has a guide that provides examples of cases in which discrimination against caregivers might be fought.
"Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities" provides a helpful list of "circumstances in which stereotyping or other forms of disparate treatment may violate Title VII or the prohibition under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) against discrimination based on a worker's association with an individual with a disability."
The guide, along with a question-and-answer fact sheet, may be accessed by clicking here. For people who live in the "caregiver" zone, the guide serves to be a bedrock of support at a time when the yawning divide between the needs of a sick family member and the need to keep a job and support the family can be overwhelming.
It's no secret that most employers look for workers who appear to have few attachments that might put a drain on their time or energy, and those who have families to support are often the first in the crosshairs when a company starts to downsize.
Recently, the point was proved in a study, "The Motherhood Penalty," led by Cornell University researcher, Professor Shelley J. Correll.
Professor Correll tested the reactions of actual firms in the northeast to applications by two groups of women; one mentioning a family and the other mentioning no one.
Responses to identical resumes varied depending on which cover letter was sent; those who did not mention children were invited to interview for the job twice as often as those whose cover letters contained a reference to having a family.
In addition, starting salaries were correspondingly skewed, with mothers earning starting salaries of up to $11,000 less than equally qualified fathers or childless women.
The issue becomes that much more poignant, however, when the family member in need of care is one who seems to be slipping away from life, rather than inching into it.
Fortunately, the courts seem to be increasingly more supportive of workers who have been penalized by employers for their need to take time off to care for a loved one.
An example of this is cited in an internet article that lists court decisions relating to family-responsibility discrimination.
After 25 years on the job, a male maintenance worker faced harassment by his employer when he took leave in order to care for his father, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease as well as for his terminally ill mother.
A new grading system which based its marks on the amount of work completed within a limited amount of time was implemented while the worker was on intermittent leave, severely compromising his status on the job.
The worker sued his employer, accusing the company of using the new policy as a means to fire him, and the courts agreed, awarding him $11.65 million in damages. The employer appealed the case but settled out of court before it came before a judge.
The fact is, the law is on the caregivers' side. Knowledge is power. Don't be afraid to use it.
Related Videos & Articles
More Information
Source:
Enforcement Guidance: Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities, Notice Number 915.002, U.S. Department of Labor, EEOC (2007)
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiving.html
Correll, S., The Motherhood Penalty, American Journal of Sociology, The University of Chicago Press (2007)
Des Jardins, J., Why Women Don't Always Share their Family Photos at Work, Blogher (2006),http://www.blogher.com/node/2944
Compliance Assistance – Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division (2007)
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla
Court Decisions Relating to Family Responsibilities Discrimination, Schultz v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., No. 01 C 0702 (N.D. Ill. 2002), University of California Hastings College of the Law (2007)
http://www.uchastings.edu/?pid=2107
.
