Posted by Katelyn Scott.
Equal pay has been an ongoing issue with women in business in society today. Equal weekly earnings for full time workers did not improve from 2016- 2017 in the United States (Hegewisch). For some reason women can do the same job as men, yet their pay is not always the same. A female today could have the same qualifications as a male and still get paid less. Recently a gender equal issue was uncovered at the University of Denver. It seems that it has been a topic brought up before at the University, but the University turned a blind eye to fixing the reoccurring issue. At the University of Denver, seven law professors realized they were doing the same work as their male colleagues, but were getting paid almost $20,000 less than the male professors (Flaherty). When will women get justice in the workforce?
Furthermore, Lucy Marsh a longtime professor apart of the law school at the University started noting the pay gap. Stated by Colleen Flaherty, “Marsh told the EEOC in 2013 that she was paid less than all of her full-time, male colleagues — even those who were hired long after her” (Flaherty). This means it took 5 years to settle this case. The EEOC sued Denver for violating the Equal Pay Act and Federal non-discrimination laws. The EEOC also found evidence of pay gaps dating back to the 1970s and were even informed about these issues (Flaherty). Obviously the University did not fix the on-going issue. This lawsuit would not occur if the University fixed the pay gap when informed years ago, but unfortunately these seven professors had to face unfair compensation. Flaherty states “the university employed nine female full time professors whose average annual salary was about $140,000, compared to about $159,700 for male full professors” (Flaherty). The gap between a female and male professor with the same role is approximately $19,700. That’s not a small pay gap. It is unfortunate these woman had to fight for equal pay and were not getting the compensation or justice deserved with their time spent at University of Denver.
In addition, the University of Denver had to pay $2.6 million in a gender discrimination lawsuit involving the University’s Sturm College of Law (Rose). The University is also going to make significant changes to its law faculty compensation policies. This is great news considering the women finally get the justice they deserve. As a woman, I hope in the future gender discrimination is no longer existent. There are laws that grant gender equal compensation, but they should be taken more seriously and be closely watched in order to create a truly equal environment. Each of the women involved worked just as hard as the others there, where they were competing against men or other women. Some measures to improve the quality of jobs held by women are to tackle occupational segregation, enforce equal pay, and come up with more opportunities in the work place for women (Hegewisch). Hopefully one day gender equal compensation will one day be consistent.
Works Cited:
Flaherty, Colleen. “U. Of Denver Settles with EEOC, Agreeing to Pay $2.66 Million to Seven Female Law Professors Who Alleged Gender-Based Pay Bias.” Esports Quickly Expanding in Colleges, Inside Higher Ed, 18 May 2018,
www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/18/u-denver-settles-eeoc-agreeing-pay-266-million-seven-female-law-professors-who.
Hegewisch, Ariane, et al. “The Gender Wage Gap: 2017 Earnings Differences by Race and Ethnicity.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 7 Mar. 2018,
Rose , Johnathan. “DU Settles Unequal Pay Lawsuit, Will Pay $2.66 Million to 7 Female Professors.” Bizjournals.com, The Business Journals, 17 May 2018,
Posted by Marissa Aniolowski.
These two articles both address the same issue that occur in two different companies. This issue is sexual discrimination. In the first article, a woman accuses AutoNation of promoting a male over her solely because she is a female. The second article, addresses the issue of gender pay in the company Oracle. As a female business student, I am concerned about being a woman in the business world because of issues like these.
In the first article, Jaqueline de la Torre filed a complaint about AutoNation because when the Parts Manager position opened up, AutoNation immediately hired a male despite the fact that they had a female Assistant Parts Manager who had been on the job for 10 years and was more than qualified to be promoted. According to De la Torre she was told they “needed a man” for the position, and she was then required to teach the new Parts Manager how to do his job because he was previously a sales associate at the dealership. Because the company failed to promote her, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing AutoNation for violating Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a female, I would defend De la Torre’s side because I know women are just as capable as men are. It is a difficult accusation to prove, but women are undermined in the work world, and that needs to change.
In the second article, three women in the senior product development role are accusing Oracle of paying their male colleagues in the same position more money. The article states, “It’s the third time this year that Oracle has been in the news around pay discrimination. In January, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against Oracle claiming the company systematically pays its white male workers more than women, and men of color.” The women’s lawyer is still searching for evidence to support their claim, but their lawyer, “says he wants to file a class action lawsuit that would cover some 1,200 women at Oracle.” How you prove the company is paying the white men more money than the rest of the workers based solely on their gender and color is a difficult task to prove, but why issues like this are still occurring is concerning. How long will it take people to realize that men, women, and people of different races are all capable of doing the same work, and the diversity will only help companies grow?
In many businesses, discrimination is still currently a big issue. It is an issue nationwide, outside the business realm that needs to be fixed, and should no longer be tolerated. The issues with these cases is finding enough evidence to support the claims and prove that they have been discriminate. The great strides that have been made to equality of race and gender are not something to ignore, but in today’s day and age, any person should not tolerate discrimination.
Marissa is a student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.
Sources:
EEOC sues AutoNation for alleged sex discrimination
https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/news/2017/10/02/eeoc-sues-autonation-for-alleged-sex.html
Oracle faces possible class-action lawsuit over gender pay discrimination
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/10/02/oracle-gender-pay-discrimination-lawsuit-orcl-goog.html
The High Court rendered an opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The bottom line is unless the employer can show it is unduly burdensome to accommodate a religious practice, it must accommodate the person even if it has a mandatory dress code or other neutrally-applied policy. The employer is required to do so if the person asks for the accommodation or even if the employer suspects the person may need one.
Abercrombie did not hire a Muslim woman because her headscarf violated their “Look Policy.” The policy, which is described as “East Coast collegiate or preppy style,” prohibits the wearing of “caps” (an undefined term in the policy) as too informal for their image. The woman applied for a job at one of the stores. The assistant manager of the store interviewed and conditionally approved her for the job. Yet, the headscarf she wore to the interview indicated to the manager that hiring her would be a violation of their “Look Policy.” Although the woman never asked for a religious accommodation, the assistant manager assumed that she would need one if hired and deferred to the district manager. The district manager thought the scarf “would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise,” and directed the assistant manager not to hire the woman.
The EEOC sued on the woman’s behalf claiming Abercrombie’s action violated Title VII and won a $20,000 judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment, ruling an “employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.”
Title VII makes it illegal for an employer “‘to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion.’ §2000e–2(a)(1).” Religion “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate [] an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”
There are two ways to bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: one is for a disparate- treatment (or intentional-discrimination), and the other, disparate-impact of otherwise facially neutral policies. The “intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge.” Disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is plain: “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”
The Court ruled: “An employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no-headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent ‘fail[ure] . . . to hire’ was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”
Under the ruling, a prospective applicant is not always required, as the Tenth Circuit held, to request an accommodation from an employer. Employers that are aware or believe an accommodation is needed and are motivated to fire or not to hire someone based on that accommodation also violate the statute. As Justice Alito stated in his concurrence, however, if it is unduly burdensome to require the accommodation, then there is no violation.
But Justice Thomas in his dissent was concerned about a broad reading of the words “because of such religious practice” in that it could sweep up an employer’s policy that applies indiscriminately to everyone, yet happens to be at odds with an employee’s religious practice. He gives the following example:
Suppose an employer with a neutral grooming policy forbidding facial hair refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a beard for religious reasons. Assuming the employer applied the neutral grooming policy to all applicants, the motivation behind the refusal to hire the Muslim appli- cant would not be the religious nature of his beard, but its existence. Under the first reading, then, the Muslim applicant would lack an intentional-discrimination claim, as he was not refused employment ‘because of’ the religious nature of his practice. But under the second reading, he would have such a claim, as he was refused employment ‘because of’ a practice that happens to be religious in nature.
Justice Thomas reasoned that under a broad reading employers with no discriminatory motive would be punished because they had no knowledge of every aspect of an employee’s religious practice. It would undermine the intent element of disparate treatment and make the employer strictly liable for its conduct. Citing precedent, Justice Thomas explained “discriminatory purpose” as “‘the purpose necessary for a claim of intentional discrimination” that “demands ‘more than . . . awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’”
He recognized refusal to accommodate can be discriminatory where an employer does not make a policy exception for someone for religious purposes involving a store policy that is applied to everyone, when at the same time makes the same allowance for someone of another religion or some secular practice. Yet, he explained,”merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy for a religious practice cannot be described as treating a particular applicant ‘less favorably than others.’” Under the majority’s view “mere refusal to accommodate a religious practice under a neutral policy could constitute intentional discrimination,” unless the employer produces evidence that the accommodation is unduly burdensome and persuades the court that it is so.
Posted by Stephanie Simms.
In this article, Ruby Tuesday is facing a civil rights lawsuit for discriminating against male job candidates. The government is suing on behalf of, Andrew Herrera, who worked at an Oregon Ruby Tuesday, and Joshua Bell, who worked at a Ruby Tuesday in Republic, Missouri. They were only allowed to work there for a temporary period of time. What makes the situation worse for Ruby Tuesday is they specifically had an internal job posting that stated only girls should apply to their restaurant. The law of discrimination based on gender states that, employers are prohibited from classifying jobs based on gender, unless employer can prove gender is essential to the job.
The government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Oregon. The lawsuit explains how the postings which were passed around to stores within nine states, and their content is a violation to the Equal Opportunity Employment laws from the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991. EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo stated, “It’s rare to see an explicit example of sex discrimination like Ruby Tuesday’s internal job announcement. . . . This suit is a cautionary tale to employers that sex-based employment decisions are rarely justified and are not consistent with good business judgment.” Everyone is entitled a fair chance when it comes to jobs, because one cannot just tell someone they cannot work somewhere without putting them up to the task. Both of the men say they were denied the opportunity to earn more money because they were not allowed to compete for the jobs.
In the end, Ruby Tuesday hired seven women and no men for the 2013 summer jobs. EEOC’s Seattle Field Office Director, Nancy Sienko said, “[Mr. Herrera] was shocked and angered that Ruby Tuesday would categorically exclude him and other male employees” from a lucrative job. The job announcement was distributed to restaurants located in Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.
The lawsuit does not indicate exactly how much in damages the men were seeking for the discrimination due to their gender.
Stephanie is business administration with a minor in biology at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.