User:Laurasherii/Sandbox

Overview

Gender discrimination at work is very common in the United States Of America, and other countries. It is a sensitive topic that many people feel only affects women but in some cases it affects men as well. Court rulings throughout the years have made laws that state that jobs cannot discriminate anyone based on gender or sex. "Sexual harassment has been the centerpiece of numerous court cases and legal decisions that have established government standards regarding harassment." Companies are held liable if people make claims that they are being discriminated against even if it is before they get the job.

One example of gender and sexual discrimination is if a male who has not graduated high school and dropped out without receiving any diploma gets an administrative position over a female who graduated with her masters degree, that is likely to be a factor of gender discrimination, before the two individuals are even hired.

Definition

Gender discrimination, also known as sexism is the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other. Gender discrimination in the workplace is usually directed towards women. Women have historically been excluded from participation in many professions.. When women finally gained entrance in a male dominated field, they were faced with many challenges.

The Workplace

Women frequently earn less wages than their male counterparts who perform the same job just because of their gender. It is illegal and against the law for an employer to discriminate between men and women with regard to benefits. An employer is legally not allowed to discriminate or treat any of the workers differently. Women should not be spoken to or treated differently then male employers, nor should they feel like they are getting verbally or sexually assaulted. Many people who do feel discriminated at work, then tend to bring their problem to court, some cases end up at the Supreme Court, like the case of Faragher v. City Of Boca Raton.

Defining Characteristics

The court case of Faragher v. City Of Boca Raton is about a lifeguard resigning her position. The cases main point is that one of the employers felt sexually discriminated against. Sex and gender discrimination is very common among people. If a person has been harmed in their place of employment because of their sex or gender, then they have suffered sex or gender discrimination. In 1992, Beth Ann Faragher brought to the cities attention that her supervisors, Bill Terry and David Silverman, had brought a "sexually hostile atmosphere" at work and there was constant offensive touching which was not initially invited. The two supervisors would also speak about women in offensive terms. "Following a bench trial, the District Court concluded that the supervisors' conduct was discriminatory harrassment sufficiently serious to alter the conditions of Faragher's employment and constitute an abusive working environment." The complaint contained specific allegations that Terry once said that he would never promote a woman to the rank of lieutenant, and that Silverman had said to Faragher, "Date me or clean the toilets for a year." This is a form of sexual assault at work, with the way these supervisors were talking to their employees and especially about women. Faragher states that there were many times these two supervisors had said things to her and other female lifeguards, and other lifeguards agreed.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

Gender discrimination is not something socially new to the world. This has been a big topic since before the 1960's. The most important law covering gender discrimination on the job is The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most important law under this act is the fact that this act prohibits all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in all aspects of employment. This law covers businesses with 15 or more employees, and it applies to all private, federal, state, and local employers. This law also states that employers can not segregate workers based on sex or gender in any way that would have an affect on their position in their place of work or field. This Act was first created to just stop the racial discrimination on the job between employers and the hiring process. "Just as the law was about to be passed, however, Representative Howard Smith of Virginia added the word "sex" to one of the opening sentences, meaning the law would also prevent sexual discrimination." People felt that Smith added the word "sex" to the bill just because it would cause controversy and maybe have the bill not pass. But after working with the National Women's Party, Smith felt this was a better idea, and "sex" should be added in this bill. The bill was then passed as a law.

The Equal Pay Act

One year before the law was passed, around 1963, another problem arose about gender discrimination. At first, during World War II, it was legal to pay women lower wages then men. Men and women had different ads in newspapers for jobs and the womens section was much lower in pay and wages. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was designed to stop the difference in pay wages between men and women when basing it on the same type of job. "The law stated that "no employer… shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions." This law did not end unequal pay but it did help in many cases of treating men and women equally. The Equal Pay Act gives women better protection while working under the law so they are not sexually discriminated against.

History Of The Court Case

In the court case of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, it was not just a simple one time event that led this woman to go to court. There to had been a history of what was going on at the workplace that made her quit, give up her position and file a complaint against her supervisors. Faragher stated in the court case that from time to time, Terry would repeatedly touch the female lifeguards without being invited to do so, and in areas that should not be touched without being invited. Silverman, the other supervisor would make frequent vulgar slurs to the females, such as referencing in oral sex and speaking about female matters. Faragher was not the only woman that was being spoken to this way, in fact another lifeguard, Nancy Ewanchew, had brought it to the City's Personal Director in an effort to put a stop to the way they were being spoken to, but the taunting did not stop. However, a major factor held against Faragher was if this problem had been going on for awhile, then it should have been brought to the City's attention earlier.

Controversy

The Debate

The debate on sexual and gender discrimination is not an easy one. There have been many cases that have been brought to court to deal with these issues. "Above and beyond standard sexual discrimination, sexual harassment has been the centerpiece of numerous court cases and legal decisions that have established government standards regarding harassment." There have been many cases in past years and in other states that have to deal with this type of discrimination. Gender and sexual discrimination is not only against women but sometimes the roles are switched and men are the ones being discriminated against. This is not the case all the time, but sometimes it does take place where men are the ones being discriminated against. In the case of Faragher v. The City Of Boca Raton, a female lifeguard was the one being discriminated against. She felt sexually harrased and she was not the only one who was being treated this way.

The jury for this case, after hearing both sides of the story stated that "Terry and Silverman were acting outside of the scope of their employment and solely to further their own personal needs." The court stated that the supervisors' relationship with the City did not assist in why they were treating their co-workers this way. In this case, the jury stated that Terry nor Silverman threatened to fire Faragher or demote her so their agency relationship did not "facilitate their harrassment." "The court reviewed the record and found no adequate factual basis to conclude that the harassment was so pervasive that the City should have known of it, relying on the facts that the harassment occurred intermittently, over a long period of time, and at a remote location." The jury felt that if this was such a serious issue taking place at the workplace that these lifeguards, such as Faragher herself, should have brought it to the City's attention earlier.

The jury went back and forth as in why the City wasn't told about this issue earlier and the agency's policy on sexual harrassment in that workplace. Each place of business has different policies as to how they handle events that occur. Faragher stated that in many ways the agency relationship "aided Terry and Silverman in carrying out their harassment." She argued that these two supervisors abused their authority to keep the workers in their place while they make offensive statements. The Court Of Appeals rejected liablity on the City's behalf and that the employer is not liable for what their employers do. The City feels that they should not be held responsible for what the employers did at the workplace. The court debated that since the victim did not receive any harm then the employer should not be held responsible for the actions of their employees. However, Faragher stated that she was working for the City and they should be the ones held responsible.

Conclusion Of The Case

The decision for this case was back and forth for awhile because their were so many areas getting pointed out. Faragher felt the City should be held responsible because the City is who these lifeguards are working for. The conclusion of the case is as follows. It was a 7-2 opinion delivered by David H. Souter. The Court came to the agreement that the City is responsible for the employers actions based on The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The City was charged with "actionable discrimination" caused by a supervisor. In this trial, Faragher, the plaintiff, walked away winning the case.