Women's Rights Employment Law Blog

A detailed report on EEOC perspective appears on the National Law Journal.

By Tresa Baldas

The federal government has launched an initiative aimed at cracking down on discriminatory hiring practices in the workplace -- a program that could land unsuspecting employers in court, employment attorneys are warning.

That's what happened to Walgreen Co. this month, lawyers note, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hit the national pharmacy chain with a class action alleging widespread racial bias against thousands of African-American workers. EEOC v. Walgreen Co., No. 07-172, (S.D. Ill.).

The suit came one week after the EEOC announced "E-RACE" (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment), an initiative that will have federal investigators paying much closer attention to how minorities are hired and promoted.

FOCUS ON HIRING

Specifically, the EEOC will focus on hiring decisions that are based on names, arrest and conviction records, employment and personality tests and credit scores -- all of which may disparately impact people of color.

For example, an African-American might be denied a job when an arrest record shows up on a background check or if a credit score turns out to be low. Such criteria, which have a disparate impact on minorities, were not considered in the past. But employers are increasingly considering such factors when hiring, and may unwittingly be denying jobs to large classes of minorities.

Many states have laws that restrict employers from asking about or considering criminal records when hiring. The EEOC holds that if an employer denies a job to an applicant because he or she has a criminal record, it could be considered discrimination if the person is a minority.

The EEOC also has a new specialized task force -- formed last year -- that will handle evidence turned up by E-RACE. Regional attorneys and directors will investigate in more detail and attempt to establish a pattern of discrimination within industries or employers, and present it to headquarters for possible litigation.

"I don't want employers to get the impression that they're some kind of bull's-eye," said EEOC attorney Paula Bruner, special assistant to the EEOC chairwoman. "We want them to be aware they need to step up in terms of their compliance with our laws."

According to the EEOC, race discrimination complaints continue to be the number one complaint made to the EEOC. In 2006, a total of 27,238 such complaints were filed. The EEOC also has seen a substantial increase over the past 15 years in discrimination claims based on color, which have soared from 374 in 1992 to 1,241 in 2006.

Continue reading "EEOC Cracks Down on Discriminatory Hiring Practices" »

San Diego Business Journal discusses five steps to updating Sexual Harassment Prevention Training.

Educating Supervisors Is Key to Complying With State Law AB1825

Question: As a small business, do I have to worry about the new sexual harassment training laws? What should I do to make sure my company is compliant?

Answer: Every small business runs the risk of sexual harassment claims without proper training of its employees. Although California state law AB1825 only requires supervisor sexual harassment training for companies with at least 50 employees, there are things you can do to protect your business and your personnel regardless of your company’s size.

For starters, distribute and enforce your company’s anti-harassment and Equal Employment Opportunities policies, as well as your complaint-resolution process.

Make sure supervisors know how to respond to employee complaints.

Explain to supervisors the unique aspects of California harassment law, which places greater responsibility on their actions and inactions. Make sure they understand about both types of sexual harassment (quid pro quo and hostile work environment).

Continue reading "Updating Sexual Harassment Prevention Training" »

Purdue students perform 'Vagina Monologues' to benefit YWCA domestic violence prevention program

Provocative, controversial, emotional and hilarious -- all can be used to describe Eve Ensler's critically acclaimed play The Vagina Monologues.

For women in Greater Lafayette, the play can be described as a lifesaver, too.

For the past five years, Purdue University students have organized productions of The Vagina Monologues on campus. Proceeds of the almost-always sold-out shows have gone to Greater Lafayette's YWCA Domestic Violence Intervention and Prevention Program. In the past two years, the YWCA received about $20,000 from Purdue's productions.

"The money goes to the women's shelter," said Nohemi Lugo, Hispanic advocate in the domestic violence program. "The money provides women with food, clothing and legal issues like child custody and divorce. It also goes to our staff, support groups and reflections groups, parenting classes and anger management classes."

The 2007 Purdue edition of The Vagina Monologues will be at 7 p.m. Friday and Saturday and 6 p.m. Feb. 11 at Loeb Playhouse inside Purdue's Stewart Center.

This production of The Vagina Monologues is the first at the 1,000-seat Loeb Playhouse. The play started out in the small Matthews Hall, Room 215, for three years before moving on to the large lecture hall in the Class of 1950 building. Sold-out shows and lackluster acoustics have brought the play to its largest venue yet.

Leslie Foutz, a junior studying English, was one of the thousands who caught The Vagina Monologues in the Class of 1950 building. The show and Ensler's words resulted in her participation this year. Foutz said The Vagina Monologues is presented in a fun, entertaining manner while it touches on serious, emotional topics such as domestic violence, rape, torture and other grievous human rights violations toward women around the world.

"You're crying and laughing at the same show," Foutz said.

Foutz is one of 21 women who will perform in this year's show. The number of actresses has been around 20 for the last few years, said director Kelly George, a senior majoring in psychology and women's studies.

What started as a one-woman show by Ensler in 1996 quickly grew to small productions featuring three women usually dressed in black and sitting on stools. By 1998, Ensler created the V-Day celebration and allowed her play to be performed to benefit non-profit organizations. The playwright made her work more inclusive with much larger casts.

"Everyone who wants to be in the play, can," George said.

With 23 monologues in the play, most performers will do one monologue each, George said. The women are standing behind one of three microphones. The pieces are memorized or on notecards. Some works are "choral" and utilize the voices of multiple actresses. The core monologues including "I Was Twelve, My Mother Slapped Me," "I Was There in the Room," and "Because He Liked to Look At It" are the same each year, but many of the pieces are revised annually. There are several "optional" monologues and a brand new one called "2007 Spotlight Monologue." The new work speaks on the 2007 V-Day theme of "Reclaiming Peace."

"With so much conflict going on around the world, especially with America and Iraq, women are being greatly affected in combat zones," George said. "The monologue talks about the correlation of violence in the street leading to violence in the home."

George and her cast hope for a large and diverse audience. They believe women and men will be enlightened by the topics in the play.

"Everyone benefits from this show. I have no problem asking my students to go," said Adryan Glasgow, a post-colonial literature graduate student and four-time cast member.

The YWCA will benefit financially from the show. Lugo is impressed and thankful of the Purdue students' efforts.

"I think it's awesome that they're doing this," she said. "It speaks a lot about the youth and it's great they're helping us out and believing in our cause."

In her column “Broadly Speaking”, Adda Birnir compares sexism with racism in an instructive manner, while making the intersections appear as relevant as they actually are:

Sexual harassment is tricky because of three considerations: the nature of the activity, whether the action is welcome and, most importantly, the context. Noam Rudnick, writing for the Hippolytic blog, compared Schlessinger’s actions to instances of unwanted sexual advances perpetrated on a female undergraduate by a male undergraduate at Toad’s Place. But unwanted sexual advances and sexual harassment are not the same. A guy inappropriately grabbing a girl at Toad’s is not an example of sexual harassment because Toad’s is a social space where it is reasonable and expected that people are making sexual advances toward one another. Because of its context, such an action is harassment of a sexual nature, not sexual harassment.

Basha Rubin, writing for the Broad Recognition blog, countered Rudnick’s comments by saying that it does a disservice to women in the workplace to compare Schlessinger’s actions to sexual advances at a nightclub, because it gives credence to the idea that a male boss who sexually harasses a female employee is simply incapable of controlling his sexual desire. The workplace is not a space where it is typically appropriate to express one’s sexual interest. For this reason, harassment at the workplace is critically different from harassment at Toad’s.

So if sexual harassment is based on a drive for power, why does it so often take a sexual form? I find that comparing sexism to racism is instructive because it allows for a case study in which sexual desire is not a factor. To answer this question, I would like to compare these instances of sexual harassment to the Michael Richards case. This past November, Richards, who played Kramer on “Seinfeld,” gained notoriety for shouting racist slurs at audience members during a stand-up comedy performance. Apparently frustrated by what he deemed to be rude interruptions by a group of black male audience members, Richards stopped his act to yell angrily at the men, calling them all sorts of names, including the N-word.

Continue reading "Sexism’s power struggle mirrors historical racism" »

Wal-Mart policies continue to hurt. Costco Wholesale employees are not amused, and a lawsuit on behalf of 700 female workers, has been finally granted. More on New York Times this Friday:

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and MICHAEL BARBARO

A federal judge granted class-action status yesterday to a lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 700 female workers at Costco Wholesale claiming that the retailer had systematically discriminated against women seeking jobs as managers.

In the lawsuit, the lead plaintiff — a former assistant store manager who was upset about not being made a store manager — asserts that Costco discriminated against women in promotions because 13 percent of the company’s store managers were women, while nearly half of its employees were women.

The lawsuit undercuts Costco’s image as one of retailing’s most benevolent companies, with generous wages and benefits that make it more attractive for employees than competitors like Wal-Mart Stores.

In her ruling yesterday, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of Federal District Court in San Francisco concluded that the case should be certified as a class action because “plaintiffs have presented strong evidence of a common culture at Costco which disadvantages women.”

The lawsuit, filed in August 2004, contends that at Costco, the highest-paid store management positions — assistant general manager and general manager — are doled out through an informal, word-of-mouth system that favors men over women.

Unlike most competitors, Costco neither posts openings for such positions nor accepts applications for them, the lawsuit said. Instead, it said, a largely male group of senior executives handpicks managers.

Brad Seligman, the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer, said, “Costco has a blind spot in its employment policies, which has allowed a glass ceiling to fester.” He called on the company, based in Issaquah, Wash., to start posting jobs and to adopt objective standards to determine who should qualify to be a store manager.

Continue reading "Costco Bias Suit Is Given Class-Action Status" »

A reflective piece on Sunday Washinton Post:
What's Lost in Prenatal Testing
Why Encourage Testing for Down Syndrome

By Patricia E. Bauer
Sunday, January 14, 2007; Page B07

She was a fresh-faced young woman with a couple of adorable kids, whiling away an hour in the sandbox at the park near my home. So was I, or so I thought. New in town, I had come to the park in hopes of finding some friends for myself and my little ones.

Her eyes flicked over to where my daughter sat, shovel gripped in a tiny fist, and then traveled quickly away. The remark that followed was directed to the woman next to her, but her voice carried clearly across the playground. "Isn't it a shame," she said, an eyebrow cocked in Margaret's direction, "that everyone doesn't get amnio?"

It's been more than 20 years, but I saw the face of that woman again when I read about the recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) this month that all pregnant women get prenatal screening for Down syndrome. I worry that universal screening brings us all closer to being like that woman at the sandbox -- uninformed, judgmental and unable to entertain the possibility that people with disabilities have something to offer.

Continue reading "What's Lost in Prenatal Testing" »

Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss has five concerns regarding the new NJ Law:

I am concerned that "transgender" may not retain its positive, non-derogatory meaning. In an example from the transgender context, in the early 1980s, Seattle passed a trans-inclusive nondiscrimination law using the broad term (they thought): transvestite. This term has since taken a negative and more limited connotation, causing the Seattle City Council to need to revise its nondiscrimination law only about twenty years later. Terms from other contexts involving groups of people who experience discrimination that demonstrate my concern about popular terminology acquiring a negative connotation include "colored people" and "handicapped." "Transgender" may not always have a positive connotation and may
fall out of favor.

The second concern is that the bill, before the amendment, utilized the best approach for discrimination protections: it used terminology that covers all people, rather than a specific, protected group of people. American non-discrimination laws are generally framed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics, like sex or race, not specific examples of people within those categories, like women or African-Americans. Just as it was unnecessary and would have been inadvisable to add "Race includes black status" to race discrimination laws, this "transgender status" clarifying amendment could unintentionally have a limiting or confusing effect on interpretations of the law. Adding just this one group-based identity to the bill’s language makes the bill conceptually incoherent and inconsistent with similar laws; either problem could negatively affect the interpretation of its provisions.

Our third concern is that this language is out-of-step with other laws protecting transgender and gender non-conforming people from discrimination. Eight states have passed similar laws, and none of them use the term "transgender people" or any similar term. No other state legislature, administrative agency or court has found that this type of clarifying amendment was necessary, nor has there been confusion that transgender people are not covered by these laws. Also, in drafting the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which is expected to be introduced this Spring, the LGBT attorneys involved in drafting, including myself, specifically rejected using the term "transgender" for many of the reasons covered in this letter. For consistency throughout the nation, and for New Jersey to be in-step with the federal bill that will eventually become law, it is best that New Jersey use relatively similar language. With similar language throughout the U.S., courts can utilize each other’s interpretations to develop a common case law that all jurisdictions can draw upon. For your reference, the definitional language of the eight states is attached as an Appendix.

Our fourth concern is about the term "status." How it would be interpreted in this context is unclear. Would transgender people have to prove that they have achieved "status?" Would someone in the early stages of transition (often when discrimination occurs) qualify as having attained that status? "Status" implies a fixity that does not capture or address the reality of discrimination against transgender people.

Our fifth concern is not about New Jersey's interpretations, but is about future interpretations of other state and federal laws. Including this term in New Jersey's law could cast doubt on what is covered by laws in other jurisdictions that do not include such language. It could beg the question, are transgender people not covered if the law only includes "gender identity or expression?" From a national perspective, the language used in New Jersey could influence other jurisdictions to either adopt the same language (cause for concern by itself for the above-mentioned reasons) and/or could negatively affect the interpretation of similar laws that lack New Jersey's additional sentence.

Starting in 2004 with the Marriage Affirmation Act, which outlawed any partnership contract purporting to provide the benefits of marriage, Virginia’s conservatives crusaded for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which passed last month and goes into effect Jan. 1. The state also does not allow for second-parent adoptions for unwed couples, rendering Poe a legal stranger to her daughter in the eyes of the law.

Washington Blade has an exclusive story: Fight or flight?
By KATHERINE VOLIN

When Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, announced her pregnancy through a spokesperson last week, reactions were mixed.

Gay rights opponents were predictably appalled at the idea of a gay couple raising a child, while supporters expressed frustration that by working on her father’s re-election campaign, Cheney had supported a political regime that would deny her own partner’s parenting rights.

Cheney, who did not respond to interview requests, is pregnant with a child due in the spring that she and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, intend to raise together. Adding to the irony of the story is that the moms-to-be live in Virginia, which has some of the most restrictive anti-gay laws in the country.

Starting in 2004 with the Marriage Affirmation Act, which outlawed any partnership contract purporting to provide the benefits of marriage, Virginia’s conservatives crusaded for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which passed last month and goes into effect Jan. 1. The state also does not allow for second-parent adoptions for unwed couples, rendering Poe a legal stranger to her daughter in the eyes of the law.

“After Jan. 1, when the amendment becomes effective, I’m afraid to say that we suspect there will be someone whose goal is to disrupt Virginia families for one reason or another and then it’s just going to have be played out in court,” says Jay Squires, a local lawyer and head of the board of directors for Equality Virginia, a gay rights group.

Squires also says that there are concerns that “some judge some place is actually going to hold that the amendment has the effect of invalidating agreements that were legally binding.”

In the meantime, he recommends a wait-and-see approach for gay parents in Virginia regarding the implications of the amendment, but it’s possible that families will be torn apart by the Commonwealth’s new law.

SOME OF VIRGINIA’S gay parents are divided over whether they should stay or flee the state for more gay-friendly environs.

Continue reading "Gay parents face difficult choices in anti-gay Virginia" »

KITV/Honolulu Channel reports:

An Oahu jury on Friday awarded more than $1 million to a Hawaii woman in what is being called the state's largest verdict awarded to an individual for a sexual harassment case.

The jury decided to make HIS Hawaii, a travel company employing about 80 people in the islands, to pay.

Attorneys for Rieko Aoki said the former customer service agent was fired after she spoke up against being sexually harassed by the manager and other co-workers.

“There were repeated occasions where the manager of the department and others attempted to remove Ms. Aoki's bra during work hours. In addition, malicious rumors were spread about Ms. Aoki in the work place. There were other occasions where she was lifted up to expose her undergarments under her skirt," attorney Larry Remillard said.

Remillard said the verdict is in part so large because HIS Hawaii rejected Aoki's claims of sexual harassment and instead promoted the harasser.

AP/News4 reports:

The top female trooper at the Nevada Highway Patrol has filed a federal sexual harassment suit against the agency, claiming command officers contributed to a hostile work environment.

Captain Jacquelyn Sandage first made the allegations against Colonel David Hosmer last summer. The suit filed in Reno federal court seeks 500-thousand dollars in damages. Sandage is the first woman to achieve the ranks of lieutenant and then captain with NHP.

Hosmer resigned in June and Major Robert Wideman, who was chief of the northern command, was demoted to captain after a team of consultants first investigated her allegations. Her lawsuit charges the atmosphere hasn't changed and that harassment of female employees continues within NHP.

A Hollywood producer faces another lawsuit: this time sexual harassment at workplace.

Wenn.com reports:

BARBRA STREISAND's ex-boyfriend JON PETERS has been slammed with another lawsuit from a former employee accusing him of sexual harassment.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (05DEC06) in California, the SUPERMAN RETURNS producer is accused of sexually harassing former employee SHELLY MORITA and exposing himself to her three-year-old daughter.


Morita, who is the plaintiff in the case, claims that during the year she worked as Peter's personal assistant, ending in February 2006, she was "harassed, verbally abused, and intimidated," to the point where she was forced to resign.
She alleges that during a car ride the two shared during a trip to Australia, "Peters kept on asking plaintiff to smoke marijuana, and when plaintiff refused, he tried to blow the smoke on Plaintiff's face, leaned towards plaintiff and started kissing plaintiff."

Morita also alleges that Peters, who has also produced CADDYSHACK, FLASHDANCE, RAINMAN and BATMAN, exposed himself to her young daughter, asking the child, "Do you want to see how boys go pee?" This isn't the first time the 61-year-old producer has been accused of sexual misconduct toward an employee. In 1998, COLLEEN BENNETT, Peter's former executive vice president of finance, filed suit, alleging that Peters groped her, exposed himself to her and conducted meetings in his underwear.
LA Times story here.

An Iowa judge is on defense to clarify his stand in regards to a sexual harassment claim by a former female co-worker against him.

KTIV-TV reports:

The judge at the center of a sexual harassment claim took the stand, today, during a civil suit filed by the former head of Juvenile Court Services.

Bridget Hayes claims Judge John Ackerman touched her inappropriately; and other co-workers discriminated against her during her three years on the job.

Hayes claims derogatory "cartoons" were posted around the work place about her during her job performance evaluation. She says the cartoons read, "you're outta here", and "another one bites the dust." But, during cross examination, the attorney for the state, Grant Dugdale, asked Hayes why she thought the cartoons were directed at her. Hayes said, because someone told her.

Next on the witness stand, three different character witnesses, including Larry Williams, the Superintendent of Sioux City's Community Schools. All three said Hayes was easy to work with, and proficient in her job as the Chief Juvenile Court Officer. Dugdale questioned how well they knew her, and said their ability to observe Hayes performance on the job, was limited.

Dugdale also brought up each account that Hayes gave during her testimony about the alleged sexual harassment, and inappropriate touching by Judge John Ackerman.

Continue reading "Judge alleged of sexual harassment" »

Posted by Saswat Pattanayak | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Discrimination, News, Sex

Bookmark:                                                  

Students in a Kentucky based paper have expressed resentments about their university policies regarding sexual harassment.

In the past five years, four Eastern faculty members accused of sexual harassment have gone relatively unpunished by Eastern. They lost their jobs, yes; but they were allowed to resign or simply didn't have their contracts renewed. While they were warned of impending termination, not one was actually fired.

None of the accused faculty, even if they truly sexually assaulted students or not, can be prosecuted for a crime according to Kentucky law, unless the cases involved sexual assault.

Turns out, though students are always encouraged to report sexual harassment, once they do, not much is done by the state or by Eastern.

The issue then becomes not just whether the alleged faculty really did sexually harass students, but whether Eastern or the state punishes them enough if they've done so.

Kentucky law currently says that if Eastern employees are accused of sexual harassment and about to be fired, they must be given ten days notice. During that ten day period, the university must give the employee the chance to resign.

In other words, the current procedure slaps handcuffs on the person, gives them the key and says, "Look, we're going to arrest you in five minutes. But if you want to leave, the choice is yours."

What idiot Eastern employee accused of sexual harassment wouldn't resign?

Let's face it, the law - meant to protect the innocent - sometimes ends up protecting the guilty.

So, bad news kids. It seems that whole hour your professor spends the first day going over the syllabus - which almost always undoubtedly includes what to do if you're sexually harassed - is officially a waste.

We, as students, obviously need to do a lot more than just report sexual harassment from now on. From the looks of things, we should also report to Eastern and the state how impotent their sexual harassment policies really are.

CommonDreams.org has this thought-provoking feature story on why Wal-Mart is not the place to shop this holiday season.

Thalia Syracopoulous writes:
As a mother, grandmother and now even great-grandmother I have lots of shopping I want to do for this holiday season. This is a busy time of year and there is much I'd love to buy. Like many others, I don't have enough money to do it all, so I have to think before I shop.

I have to think about what to buy and where to shop. Good quality and affordable price are major considerations but they are not the only important things. I want my choices to be for the good of my family and my community, and women are an incredibly important part of my community.

So, despite the lure of low prices, I'm joining other women in Seattle on Thursday to urge shoppers to think before they shop at Wal-Mart.

I won't be shopping at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart really is bad for women.

Of course, discrimination against women is common in corporate America and I can't guarantee that every place I shop treats women well. But Wal-Mart is the world's largest employer and one of the worst abusers of its women employees in the U.S.

It isn't just that Wal-Mart doesn't pay a living wage; it's that they pay women even less than men in the same positions. Women make up more than 70 percent of Wal-Mart's hourly employees but less than one-third of its store management. Only one of its top 20 officers is a woman. And, in 2001, the few women who become managers earned $14,500 less than their male counterparts. Women hourly workers earned $1,100 less than men. These are a few of the reasons Wal-Mart is the subject of the largest class-action suit ever in this country. The lawsuit represents more than 1.5 million present and past employees of Wal-Mart and its affiliate, Sam's Club.

It goes beyond that. This year, Wal-Mart instituted a salary cap on its employees so they can only earn so much. Wal-Mart now uses more part-time workers. If you work fewer than 34 hrs/week, you have to wait a year before being eligible for health insurance and, even then, your children cannot be included in the coverage. Full-time employees have to wait 180 days before they become eligible for health benefits. That's six months before you or your children can go to a doctor for any reason, even an emergency. Should a woman be one of the lucky ones who is eligible, and can afford to buy the insurance, she will learn that her health plan does not cover contraception.

We women are the shoppers in this country. In particular we are the ones who are most likely responsible for buying the basics -- food, clothing, shoes, school supplies, toilet paper and toys. These are the things Wal-Mart sells. If I choose to save money on each item by shopping at a Wal-Mart where the woman waiting on me can't afford day care, health care, food or even the contraceptives that might keep her family from growing larger than she can support, I am hurting her and a lot of other women. That is not good for me, my family or my community.

I know most of the women working at Wal-Mart are thankful they have a job, even one that underpays and possibly mistreats them. That is no reason for us to sit back and let the abuse continue.

Together, we can change Wal-Mart. Please think before you shop. You can learn about NOW work at http://www.now.org/issues/wfw/wal-mart.html

Thalia Syracopoulos is a member of the board of the Seattle chapter of the National Organization for Women.

© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

In yet another instance of family responsibilities discrimination, a woman lawyer has filed a lawsuit against her law firm for being “treated differently by the firm after she had children.” She was asked to prepare the cases for trial for male attorneys while she suffered from low wages and benefits.

ABA Journal has the detailed report:

Lawyer Says She Was Shoved onto the Mommy Track
Lawsuit claims Pittsburgh law firm told her to spend more time with her kids

By G.M. Filisko

In what one expert says is a rising trend, a woman lawyer has sued her law firm for sexual discrimination alleging, among other things, that she was told she needed to spend less time at work and more with her family.

Alyson J. Kirleis filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against her Pittsburgh-based employer. Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, No. 06 CV 1495 (Nov. 9).

"This lawsuit's a doozy," says Joan C. Williams, a professor who teaches employment law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Williams has studied cases filed by mothers against employers based on what she calls "family responsibilities discrimination," and she says the number of cases is increasing.

"There’s been a 40 percent increase in this type of case in the past 10 years," Williams says. "We’ve documented more than 800 lawsuits based on family responsibility against employers in general, and we’ve found 32 other lawsuits of this type against legal employers. Of those 32, it’s a mix of attorneys and staff, but most of the cases have been filed by attorneys."

"It certainly looks as if [family responsibility] cases are the new face of discrimination law based on the fact that they're growing so rapidly, w