Womenstake

NWLC Receives 2009 Race and Gender Equity Hot Schott Award

by Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment,
National Women’s Law Center 

We are pleased to announce that the National Women’s Law Center received the 2009 Race and Gender Equity Hot Schott Award with our partner, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, for our collaboration in researching and writing Listening to Latinas: Barriers to High School Graduation.

Bestowed by the Schott Foundation for Public Education, this award is granted to individuals and organizations that have “demonstrated exceptional commitment and achieved extraordinary results in advocating for equity in public education.” We received the award at the Hot Schott Awards Gala and Dinner, which were held as part of Schott’s second annual National Opportunity to Learn Education Summit. To learn more about the Summit and Gala, click here.

From Left to right: Cyneé Simpson, anchor for ABC-7/WJLA-TV’s Weekend Evening News, Veronica Rivera, Legislative Staff Attorney for MALDEF, Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment at NWLC, and John Jackson, President and CEO of the Schott Foundation for Public Education.

Conform to Gender Norms - Or Face the Consequences

by Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment, 
National Women’s Law Center 

Last week a principal at a high school in Waldorf, Maryland reversed her decision to ban a student from the yearbook.  What conduct warranted such an extreme decision?  Well, a female student wanted to be photographed in a tuxedo like the male students in her class (rather than the drape required for girls) and that, it seems, was quite controversial.

Initially the principal gave her two options – either wear the drape or don’t appear in the yearbook.  But the principal reversed the decision to ban the student from the yearbook last week after investigating the practices and policies of other high schools in the county. 

It is wonderful that the student, after working hard for years, will not be banned from the yearbook.  But it is also a smart decision for the school – one thing that did not make the media reports is that the school opened itself up to liability under Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination by educational institutions that receive federal funds, including sex-stereotyping.  Who knows if this case would have risen to the level of a law suit or an investigation by the Office for Civil Rights.  But let’s just say that denying a student an opportunity to participate in school activities because she failed to conform to female stereotypes is not a good way to start the school year.

Paycheck Fairness Act Heating Up

by Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment, 
National Women’s Law Center 

The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that would strengthen current laws against wage discrimination, now has 33 co-sponsors in the Senate.

This important bill already passed in the House along with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And for good reason – the Paycheck Fairness Act would close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act, prohibit retaliation against workers who disclose their wages, and allow women to receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that have long been available to those subject to discrimination based on race and national origin.

Especially during these tough economic times, women need equal pay for equal work for themselves, their families and their communities. Learn more about the Paycheck Fairness Act or take action now to urge your Senators to support and pass this crucial piece of legislation.

Senator Kennedy – Our Civil Rights Champion

by Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment, 
National Women's Law Center 

Senator Kennedy dedicated his career to advancing civil rights. My colleagues Neena and Dina wrote about his deep commitment to Title IX – on providing an equal opportunity for women and girls in education he was no doubt a leader. But on every other important civil rights issue for the past 45 years, Senator Kennedy was also way out front. It was the Senator who took to the floor of the Senate to convince his colleagues that the time was right to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was the Senator who fought to pass the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978 to ensure that Title VII’s ban against sex discrimination in the workplace would include pregnancy. It was Senator Kennedy who led the fight on the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to restore important protections lost in Supreme Court decisions and to include compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII. He led the fight on voting rights and worked to improve opportunities for the disabled and the elderly. He advocated for protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and was a leader on strong hate crimes legislation. And he importantly understood that civil rights legislation could be hollow if there were no adequate enforcement mechanisms. 

And these points do not even begin to scratch the surface. There is no doubt; the Senator was a champion – our civil rights champion – for nearly half of a century. And he will be sorely missed.

Paula Abdul and Pay Equity – an Expert Opinion

by Robin Reed, Online Outreach Manager, 
National Women's Law Center

You might’ve heard, if you’ve been following your entertainment news, that Paula Abdul is leaving “American Idol” due at least partly to a dispute over her pay. Abdul was said to earn millions less than her male co-stars Simon Cowell and Ryan Seacrest.

NWLC’s Vice President for Education and Employment, Fatima Goss Graves, appeared on CNN to discuss the larger issues surrounding fair pay for women. 

Watch the video.

Coming Up in the Sotomayor Hearings: Ricci and More Ricci

by Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel, 
National Womens Law Center 

This post is part of a series about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

On June 29, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. This case would be an important one in any year – in a decision issued on the last day of the term, the Supreme Court established a new rule for an employer that seeks to set aside what it believes to be a discriminatory test or practice. That decision, and its ultimate impact on employment opportunities for women and people of color, is worthy of much discussion. As we’ve explained here before, the Title VII standard at issue in Ricci – in legal terms called “disparate impact” – has been critically important in helping to open doors for women into nontraditional (and well-paid) occupations, such as firefighting, police work and construction, by allowing challenges to a variety of recruitment, hiring, and promotion practices that adversely affect women.
 
But the reason that Ricci has been all over the press and will certainly be a central focus of the hearing is because Judge Sotomayor was a member of a three-judge panel that wrote the summary order reviewed by the Supreme Court.The Ricci case was already mentioned this morning in Senator Sessions’ opening statement. I expect that, like in the press, the Ricci case will continue to be distorted throughout the hearings. It will be called an affirmative action case (it is not); arguments will be made that New Haven wanted to hire unqualified individuals for important public safety positions (it did not – all the test takers in this case were already firefighters and the point was to find a fair test that accurately reflected merit); and some might even argue that after Ricci employers can no longer take steps to address practices that adversely impact their employees based on their race (or their sex, or their religion – you get my point). This last point is particularly important – even after the Supreme Court’s troubling decision in Ricci, employers must continue to take steps to address both intentional and unintentional, but still, discriminatory practices. The Court’s decision made the bar a little higher for employers to address discriminatory tests, but didn’t remove their obligation to do just that. 
 
As I’ve said, this is a case that would stand out in any term. And it’s worthy of a thoughtful discussion. Let’s hope that happens. 

Ricci comes down Monday – Stay Tuned!

by Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center 

Monday is the last day of the Supreme Court’s 08-09 term, and we’re still awaiting a pretty important decision – Ricci v. DeStefano. We’ve blogged about the stakes in Ricci before. As we’ve said, it is critical that the Court reaffirm that employers have the ability to voluntarily remedy discrimination in the workplace and eliminate barriers for employment and promotion. We’ll update you next week on Ricci and what the Court’s term as a whole has meant for women and girls.

Getting the Ricci v. DeStefano Facts Straight

by Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center 

In the next couple weeks, the Supreme Court will issue a decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. I’ve blogged about Ricci before, but it is worth expanding a bit on the facts and what is at stake in Ricci once again, particularly given how poorly it has been covered by the media.

The facts: The City of New Haven administered a test for promotions in its fire department. Although 27 black firefighters took the exam, none scored high enough to be promoted to captain or lieutenant. The New Haven Civil Service Board (the board that typically certifies results of civil service exams in New Haven) then held hearings and, following testimony that the exams did not actually predict who would make good fire captains or lieutenants, determined that it could not proceed with the promotions. Attempting to comply with Title VII’s mandate against employment discrimination, New Haven decided to freeze the promotions process so that it could determine whether there was a test that appropriately evaluated who might qualify for promotions without the adverse impact on minorities. Now a word to Frank Ricci, who has captured the media’s attention with his story: Frank Ricci studied hard for the test, even hiring a tutor to overcome his dyslexia. But, and this next point is really important, he may have scored high on the test but the high score is meaningless if it is a test that doesn’t actually measure who would be best-suited for a captain or lieutenant position.

Debating Pregnancy Discrimination in 2009

by Melanie Ross Levin, Outreach Manager,
National Women's Law Center

Should employers be allowed to discriminate against pregnant women in the name of less regulation? Last week this issue was debated on Fox News.

So, you might be thinking... what year is it? Did I just get beamed back a couple of decades when many women got fired just for showing a little baby bump or even just announcing their pregnancy?

As you can see from the video below our very own Fatima Gross Graves did an awesome job arguing in favor of increased enforcement of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and other laws that protect pregnant employees.

Watch the video

News Flash: Diversity is a Good Thing

by Fatima Goss Graves, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center 

Recent print and television commentators have claimed that no white man need apply for the Supreme Court.  Correction – they also believe that people in their 60s also need not apply. The underlying assumption, as Benjamin Wittes wrote in the Washington Post over the weekend, is that “gender, ethnicity and age have, from the very start of the search for Souter’s replacement, placed off-limits many lawyers and judges who colleagues regard as some of the best in their profession.” I’m not sure when President Obama ever said he would not consider older, white males for the Supreme Court. In fact, here’s what we know about the President’s criteria for nominating justices. He is looking for people “who understand justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,” and who get that laws affect the lives of ordinary people. 

But let’s assume that President Obama is indeed looking for candidates who are women or people of color. This is something to celebrate, since many of these candidates are themselves “some of the best in their profession” – but have been foreclosed, for far too long, from selection to the nation’s highest court. Considering diverse candidates is not, as Wittes seems to assume, antithetical to finding high quality nominees. In fact, it is an essential component of that enterprise. 

To be sure, organizations like the National Women’s Law Center have urged the President to increase the number of women on the Supreme Court beyond the sole female justice – Justice Ginsburg – who herself has identified the need for company. There are numerous exceptionally qualified women who would bring to the Court the real world perspective that the President is seeking. It is only by taking these facts into consideration that the President can do his part to ensure that the Supreme Court complies with the motto carved over its front door:  EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.