EEOC Tackles Family Responsibilities Discrimination
The EEOC signaled its interest in the emerging area of family responsibility discrimination by holding a public meeting April 17 to discuss work/family balance and its intersection with federal anti-discrimination laws. The agency is considering developing enforcement guidance on the topic, according to an EEOC statement. "Fortunately, many employers have...
April 23, 2007 at 11:19 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The EEOC signaled its interest in the emerging area of family responsibility discrimination by holding a public meeting April 17 to discuss work/family balance and its intersection with federal anti-discrimination laws.
The agency is considering developing enforcement guidance on the topic, according to an EEOC statement.
“Fortunately, many employers have recognized employees' need to balance work and family and companies have responded in very positive and creative ways,” EEOC Vice Chair Leslie Silverman said in the statement. “Unfortunately, not all caregivers work in hospitable environments. We hear from caregivers who face barriers, stereotyping and unequal treatment on the job.”
The Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law released a study last year called “Litigating the Maternal Wall,” which found that lawsuits claiming discrimination based on caregiving responsibilities increased 400 percent between 1996 and 2005.
“Motherhood causes women to be viewed through the lens of stereotypes,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law, told the EEOC. “This helps explain why women who are on the superstar track often find their careers derailed once they have children.”
Elizabeth Grossman, regional attorney for the EEOC's New York District Office, noted that pregnancy discrimination cases have increased 45 percent between 1992 and 2006.
“Unfortunately, we have found that employers' discriminatory behavior does not end with the birth of a child,” Grossman told the meeting. “In some instances, employers' stereotypical attitudes about new mothers' abilities to perform their jobs remain a reality and leave many women insecure about their chances of successfully resuming their careers after childbirth.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBeyond the Title: Developing a Personal Brand as General Counsel
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
Trending Stories
- 1Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 2Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
- 3Conn. Supreme Court: Workers' Comp Insurance Cancellations Must Be Unambiguous
- 4To Avoid Conflict, NYAG Hands Probe Into Inmate's Beating Death to Syracuse-Area DA
- 5Scripture-Quoting Employee Sues Company for Supporting LGBTQ Pride
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250