Archive for year: 2017

In workplaces all across the country, subtle forms of discrimination go undetected, and unaddressed. Managers, supervisors, and coworkers can make their job sites better for everyone by fighting back against gender bias at the office, or on the line.

In this blog I will review the American Bar Journal’s article entitled “4 common patterns of bias that women face at work–and how you can correct them.” I will explain what managers and coworkers can do when they see these four common types of gender discrimination at work.

Feminist Legal Scholar Shares Tips for Fighting Discrimination at Work

Feminist legal scholar Joan C. Williams at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law and her daughter Rachel Dempsey co-authored a book What Works for Women at Work. The publication gives female employees practical solutions to the implicit bias they experience every day at work. According to the book’s summary on Amazon.com:

Often women receive messages that they have only themselves to blame for failing to get ahead—Negotiate more! Stop being such a wimp! Stop being such a witch! What Works for Women at Work tells women it’s not their fault. The simple fact is that office politics often benefits men over women.

Williams and Dempsey interviewed 127 successful working women and put together a toolkit based on 35 years of research in combating established gender norms. The work got the attention of the American Bar Association, which has been addressing the lack of diversity and gender equality in the legal industry. In its article on Williams’s work, the ABA noted:

There’s no shortage of discussion about lack of diversity in the workplace, especially the legal profession. But solutions to the diversity problem and ways to combat implicit bias are harder to come by.

Here four common problems women come up against in the workplace, and some solutions Williams suggests.

Women and Minorities Are Asked to Prove It Again

Women in male-dominated industries are often asked to reestablish their credentials with supervisors in order to get the credit they deserve. Williams labels this “Prove-It-Again.”

What Prove-It-Again Looks Like

An employee being asked to “prove it again” may find her ideas being echoed by, and credited to, others. For example, a woman may recommend a meeting idea, only to have it ignored. But when a man later repeats that idea, it gets action.

How to Fight Back Against Prove-It-Again Bias

If you notice women’s ideas being ignored or attributed to men, give credit where it is due. Williams suggests correcting the gender bias by saying, “I’ve been pondering that ever since Pam first said it.”

Women Walk a Tightrope Between Professionalism and Gender Expectations

Subtle implicit gender bias often influences the assignment of duties. When “women’s work” falls disproportionately on female employees, it causes them to walk a “tightrope” between masculine and professional behaviors and the expectation of what it means to be feminine.

What a Tightrope Situation Looks Like

Tightrope situations happen when women are expected to take on housekeeping and secretarial duties not normally a part of their job descriptions. It could include planning the company party, taking notes during a conference, or cleaning up after a meeting.

How to Fight Back in a Tightrope Situation

To keep these tasks from falling unfairly on women employees, suggest establishing a rotation or assigning these tasks to assistants or support staff. This will make better use of professional women’s time and respect their expertise.

Women Are in a Tug of War Between Their Work and Their Womanhood

When women become identified as a minority, it can make them representatives of their entire sex. This places them in a tug of war between their loyalty to their work and their identity with their gender.

What a Tug of War Looks Like

A “tug of war” often happens when a female employee is called out as a woman and asked “What do women think?” By being made the “token woman” and being asked to speak on behalf of their gender, female employees are forced to put their professional identities aside. They are reduced to the stereotypes of their gender.

How to Fight Back Against Tug of War Situations

Williams encourages managers and co-workers to be on the look out for tokenism. By making sure there isn’t a pattern of placing just one woman on a committee or team, a supervisor can prevent that woman from having to speak for all women in the course of professional debate.

Women Face a Maternal Wall in Advancement

The “maternal wall” puts women in the tough spot of choosing between their families and their careers. When an employer makes decisions about a woman’s commitment based on her children, gender discrimination is a natural result.

What a Maternal Wall Looks Like

When an employer uses family commitments as an excuse not to promote a woman or give her prestigious assignments, it creates a maternal wall. Whenever child care issues or possible impact on an employee’s family is part of an employment decision, it raises red flags.

How to Fight Back Against a Maternal Wall

It can be difficult to fight back against “maternal wall” policies informally. Williams recommends asking “I wonder if we’d say the same thing about a man.”

Family status is a protected class under state and federal employment discrimination lawsuits. If adverse employment decisions are based on a person’s pregnancy, marital status, or the fact that she has children, she may be entitled to file a gender discrimination or pregnancy discrimination claim. Encourage the employee facing the “maternal wall” to talk to an employment discrimination attorney to explore her options in and out of court.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we know the subtle signs of gender discrimination. We can help coworkers and the victims of discrimination work together to change the culture of their workplace. When that doesn’t work, we can take the matter to court to force employers to treat all their employees based on their credentials, instead of their gender. If you or a coworker are facing gender discrimination at work, contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, to schedule a free consultation.

You are on Monster or Indeed, or one of the many other online job application forums. You are looking for a technical job in your field. But if you are a woman, would you ever consider using just your initials to land an interview?

In this blog I will review and discuss an article by John Greathouse of the Wall Street Journal, recommending that women in tech industries hide their gender to combat gender bias, along with readers’ reactions. I will also discuss the legal effects of discriminatory hiring and what women (and men) can do if they feel they have been passed over unfairly.

Gender Bias in Hiring

In his article “Why Women in Tech Might Consider Just Using Their Initials Online” writer, investor, and serial entrepreneur John Greathouse recognized that the tech industry, like many other professional subsets, has a gender problem. He quoted Renee Rottner, Assistant Professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Technology Management Program as saying:

“Gender-bias limits us whether we are investors, employers or educators. In studies that reveal gender, but keep the content the same – the same venture pitch, the same resume, the same online course material – women are perceived as less competent than men, even though their performance was identical.

What’s more, these studies find that the evaluator’s gender has little effect – women and men are equally biased in their judgments against women – not exactly a win for gender equality. However, once we accept that we all have these biases, then we are in a position to fix the problem.”

Greathouse acknowledges efforts made in professional orchestras toward diversity. By holding blind auditions, professional music companies were able to remove gender, race, and ethnicity from consideration in evaluating and hiring the most talented musicians.

Hiding Identity to Avoid Gender Bias

But rather than call for the tech industry to make similar changes, Greathouse went on to suggest that women seeking skilled technical positions hide their identities online by using only their initials or gender neutral names. He says:

“In a similar fashion, women in today’s tech world should create an online presence that obscures their gender. A gender-neutral persona allows women to access opportunities that might otherwise be closed to them. Once they make an initial connection with a potential employer or investor, such women then have an opportunity to submit their work and experiences for an impartial review.”

To get around gender bias in employment, raising capital, and obtaining investments, John says “however unfair it may be” women should:

• Eliminate photos from your online profiles
• Identify yourself and your team using initials
• Modify social media accounts like LinkedIn, Twitter, and email to use the same initials and eliminate photos.

Interestingly, Greathouse goes on to say “I am not suggesting that people shun their ethnicity or run from their cultural identities.” He makes no such qualification about turning away from a person’s gender.

Women Respond to Greathouse

The Wall Street Journal received wide criticism for Greathouse’s article and his recommendations. In a subsequent article, “Readers React: Should Women Use Their Initials to Break into Tech?” writer Demetria Gallegos summarizes the response saying:

“The column elicited a strong response on Twitter, with many criticizing the suggestion that individuals take this action when the industry itself is at fault. Others acknowledged the practice and had, in some cases used it themselves.”

Responses called the article out for causing girls and women to be ashamed of their gender. They likened Greathouse’s advice regarding using initials only to mandated burkas or comments that a woman should “not dress like that” if she did not want attention. Many called Greathouse’s comments “mansplaning” – when a man talks condescendingly toward a woman about something he does not fully understand, assuming he knows more on the topic than the listener.

The general consensus was that Greathouse was essentially telling women how to work around implicit gender bias in the patriarchy, rather than expose the problematic industry practices that cause women to be hired less frequently than men. One respondent, “Laine Nooney @ NOPE” who uses the Twitter handle @Sierra_Offline said:

“What we need from you @johngreathouse is to NORMALIZE and SIGNALBOOST respect for women, not give dealing-w-patriarchy protips.”

The overwhelming response caused John Greathouse to rethink his position. Within a day, he had issued the following apology:

“I apologize for the dreadful article I wrote in the WSJ.

I told women to endure the gender bias problem rather than acting to fix the problem. I hurt women and utterly failed to help, which I wholly regret and apologize for having done. Women have a tough enough time having their voices heard and my insensitive comments only made matters worse. I am truly sorry. – John”

Legal Options to Fighting Gender Bias

Women do face implicit gender biases every day when looking for jobs. But they may not have to resort to gender-stripping identities and ineffective text-only profiles to get around the establishment. State and federal laws include protections for job applicants against gender discrimination. Potential employees in male-dominated industries can often work with employment discrimination attorneys to build a case against gender bias in hiring practices. By filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) or in court, women can help change the climate of the tech industry, rather than finding ways to work around it.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, our experienced gender discrimination attorneys know what gender bias looks like, and how to fight it. We will meet with you and discuss your options, both in and out of court. If you believe you have been passed over for a job because of your gender, contact us to arrange a free initial consultation.

Now that Donald Trump has become the next President of the United States, several communities find themselves wondering how their lives will change. They want to know how Donald Trump can affect laws that protect them from sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination at work. Will they be safe from harassment in years to come? Can Trump reverse laws on sex discrimination in the workplace?

In this blog post, I will discuss how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII prohibitions against sex discrimination. I will explain how a change in Executive Branch leadership can affect policy decisions and enforcement priorities, and what might be on the horizon under a Trump presidency.

Title VII is Well-Established Law

The primary federal statute protecting employees’ civil rights is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. First enacted in 1964, it has been amended several times during both Republic and Democratic administrations. The law makes it illegal to discriminate against employees based on a number of inherent characteristics, including sex.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has enforced Title VII and other civil rights laws for decades. More recently it has begun enforcing Title VII against employers who discriminated against workers based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These complaints and lawsuits are filed on behalf of gay, lesbian, and transgender employees who race hostile work environments or adverse employment decisions because they do not fit traditional sexual stereotypes (including that women are not attracted to women and that men do not wear dresses or make-up).

The United States Supreme Court has upheld sexual stereotypes as a basis for a sex discrimination claim. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). It has also held that same-sex harassment is sex discrimination under Title VII. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1988). The EEOC has used these decisions and its policy to pursue administrative settlements for LGBT workers facing sex discrimination on the job.

While the EEOC’s policies are subject to change from time to time, these court decisions will likely remain, providing a basis for private employment discrimination attorneys to seek sex discrimination claims for their LGBT clients. Last week’s blog provides a more thorough discussion of President Trump’s influence over the courts’ decisions.

President-Elect Donald Trump’s Influence on Decision Makers

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a bipartisan independent agency made up of five members. These Commissioners are appointed by the President. Among the five, Jenny Yang is the current Chairperson. She was named Chair by President Obama on September 1, 2014. As Chair, Yang has the ability to direct the EEOC’s policies and priorities. She has focused on equal pay for women as well as sexual orientation and gender identity claims.

As president, Donald Trump will have the authority to designate a new Chair. As of December 14, 2016, he had not announced any new EEOC appointments, so it isn’t clear that there are any changes on the horizon. But if he does designate a new chairperson, or appoint other EEOC commissioners, it could cause the organization to shift its focus away from women and LGBT rights toward more traditional forms of civil rights protections.

In addition to the Commission, the EEOC is directed, coordinated, and supervised by the General Counsel, an attorney appointed by the President. In October, the EEOC’s General Counsel, David Lopez, announced he would be leaving the organization in December. Much of the agency’s work on sexual orientation discrimination has happened under Lopez’s direction. The vacancy will allow President Trump an early opportunity to appoint new leadership at the EEOC and shape the way the agency enforces civil rights law in the future.

Finding Ways Through Uncertainty

The laws underlying EEOC protections against sex discrimination and harassment of LGBT workers haven’t changed. Private employment discrimination attorneys still have decades of legal decisions to rely on in protecting American workers from hostile work environments and harmful employment decisions. If President-Elect Donald Trump wants to affect changes to the system, he will have to do it through the appointment of executive branch positions, like the EEOC Commissioners and the General Counsel. While this could make it harder to protect employee rights, it won’t eliminate the good work already done by the EEOC to create legal precedent and protect vulnerable workers.

At Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, we have represented employees under a variety of political administrations. We know how a President can affect the work we do, and how to work around his influence. If you are facing sex discrimination and harassment at work, contact Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, to schedule a free consultation. We’ll help you plan a strategy that guides you through the uncertain transition between presidents and protects your rights.