Where is America’s Age Discrimination Commissioner?

Australia, a world leader in combating workplace bullying, recently announced the appointment of Australia’s first Age Discrimination Commissioner.

Despite the fact that age discrimination is epidemic in the United States, it appears the problem is being  ignored by the federal government and non-profit advocacy agencies like the American Association for Retired Persons (one of the country’s leading medical insurers).

Australia announced tn July 2011 the appointment of an Age Discrimination Commissioner  to combat age discrimination in Australian workplaces and the wider community.

Where is America’s age discrimination commissioner?

The current economic climate in the United States is like a “perfect storm” for older workers. There is record unemployment for workers aged 55 and above and there is record age discrimination.

The impact of unemployment on older workers is dire as they face potentially decades of retirement, and health issues, without the ability to prepare financially.  Older workers do not have the time and may never recover from the adverse impact of age discrimination.

Age discrimination complaints to the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission  are at an all-time high.  In five years, the number of age discrimination complaints has increased FORTY PERCENT.  There were 23,264 age discrimination complaints filed with the EEOC in 2010.

Meanwhile, the  Bureau of Justice Statistics(BJS) reports that unemployment for persons aged 55 and above has increased sharply since the beginning of the recession in December 2007. The jobless rate among older workers was 7.1 percent (seasonally adjusted) in February 2010, just shy of the record-high level of 7.2 percent in December 2009.

In addition, the BJS says that older workers remain unemployed longer than younger workers. The BJS states that nearly half (49.1 percent) of older jobseekers had been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer in February 2010, compared with 28.5 percent of workers aged 16 to 24 years and 41.3 percent of workers aged 25 to 54 years.

(According to a 2011  CareerBuilder survey on workplace bullying,  women aged 55 and above are more likely than any other demographic group to  report feeling bullied in the workplace, another problem America ignores.)

Australia’s new age commissioner, the Hon. Susan Ryan, will operate under he auspices of the Australia Age Discrimination Act, and will tackle issues such as discrimination in getting job or applying for a promotion, enrolling at a university, applying to rent a house, or using services such as at a bank. The government provided $4 million in funding over four years to the Australian Human Rights Commission to support the new position.

Australia was one of the first countries to recognize the problem of workplace bullying, which causes potentially severe  injury to a target’s mental and physical health, destroys families and costs the United States billions each year in needless turnover, lost work, higher health costs, absenteeism, etc.  In fact, in Victoria, Australia, workplace bullying is considered a criminal offense under some circumstances.

At this point, it may go without saying that America has yet to offer workers any protection against workplace bullying.

Then the “Law is a Ass”

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot.” –  Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist.

A federal judge in New York earlier this week threw out a pregnancy discrimination case against Bloomberg, L.P.,  holding that it is not the court’s job to “tell businesses what attributes they must value in their employees as they make pay and promotion decisions.”

Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, essentially says pregnant women who take maternity leave are making a choice which may leave them in a  disadvantageous position at the workplace. She says it’s not against the law  because … hey, it was their choice wasn’t it?

The EEOC alleged that 49 of the 78 claimants in the lawsuit were demoted once they announced their pregnancy and/or returned from maternity leave in terms of a diminished title and the number of employees directly reporting to them. Not only were their responsibilities diminished but their responsibilities were handed off to junior male employees.  Also, the EEOC alleged, 77 of 78 of the claimants had their total compensation decreased after becoming pregnant or returning from maternity leave.

Bloomberg is an international financial services and media company based in New York City that provides news, information, and analysis. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg owns the majority of the company, which he founded in 1981

Judge Preska writes:

“ … women who take maternity leave, work fewer hours, and demand more scheduling flexibility likely are at a disadvantage in a demanding culture like Bloomberg’s … The law does not require companies to ignore or stop valuing ultimate dedication, however unhealthy that may be for family life.”

She goes on to write:

“The law does not mandate “work-life balance.” It does not require companies to ignore employees’ work-family tradeoffs — and they are tradeoffs — when deciding about employee pay and promotions. It does not require that companies treat pregnant women and mothers better or more leniently than others. All of these things may be desirable, they may make business sense, and they may be “forward thinking.” But they are not required by law.”

Judge Preska granted Bloomberg’s request for a summary judgment to dismiss the EEOC’s complaint, finding that a  reasonable jury could not conclude that Bloomberg engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against pregnant women who took maternity leave. Judge Preska said the “anecdotal” evidence provided by the EEOC was insufficient in light of  evidence produced by Bloomberg.  Judge Preska’s decision means the case cannot proceed to a jury.

Judge Preska acknowledged that compensation “growth” for workers who took maternity leave was less than for those who took no leave but she said it is legal to discriminate “between those employees who take off long periods of time in order to raise children and those who either do not have children or are able to raise them without an appreciable career interruption.”

The EEOC also presented examples of alleged bias. One class member, for example, “reported to the CEO in 2003 that the head of the News division made some negative comments about women taking paid maternity leave but then not returning to the company, the CEO said, “Well, is every fucking woman in the company having a baby or going to have a baby?”

According to Judge Preska: “Isolated remarks by a handful of executives — or one specific executive, the head of News, which EEOC focuses on heavily here — do not show that Bloomberg’s standard operating procedure was to discriminate against pregnant women and mothers.”

Finally, here’s what Judge Preska has to say about the fact that only women bear children:

“To be sure, women need to take leave to bear a child. And, perhaps unfortunately, women tend to choose to attend to family obligations over work obligations thereafter more often than men in our society. Work-related consequences follow. Likewise, men tend to choose work obligations over family obligations, and family consequences follow. Whether one thinks those consequences are intrinsically fair, whether one agrees with the roles traditionally assumed by the different genders in raising children in the United States, or whether one agrees with the monetary value society places on working versus childrearing is not at issue here. Neither is whether Bloomberg is the most “family-friendly” company. The fact remains that the law requires only equal treatment in the workplace. Employment consequences for making choices that elevate non-work activities (for whatever reason) over work activities are not illegal.”

Judge Preska was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on March 31, 1992.

It is not clear whether or not Judge Preska has any children.

Employment Discrimination: What’s with Indiana?

 

The number of  employment discrimination complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission  is at an all time high, and its expected to rise.

But there are indications that discrimination is more prevalent in certain states, which apparently have laws and a regulatory schemes that favor business. For example, Texas is an employment-at-will state, which means that employees can be terminated for any reason as long as it doesn’t violate the law (i.e. discrimination) or an important public policy.

Conversely, some high population states appear to have a lower incidence of employment discrimination, possibly indicating a more favorable climate for employer-employee relations.

Businessweek recently did an analysis based on the number of EEOC “merit resolutions” in 2010. These are cases resolved without litigation by the EEOC with private employers and state and local government employers (not federal government). The EEOC filed 250 lawsuits in 2010, resolved 285 lawsuits, and resolved 104,999 private sector charges.  Note: The EEOC “prosecutes” only a fraction of the complaints that are filed with the EEOC.

Businessweek’s analysis shows that Texas was the state with the highest number of merit resolutions in 2010. However, this is not particularly surprising given that Texas has the second highest population of any state, after California, which ranked 2nd.

But what’s with Indiana? It’s the 15th largest state but ranks 5th state in terms of EEOC merit resolutions. Indiana touts itself as America’s heartland, a family friendly place.  Apparently it is even friendlier to business.  If you’re looking for a job, you might want to take this into account. And if you have a job in states like Indiana, Alabama or Mississippi, well … good luck!

On the other hand, New York is the 3rd largest state but ranks 15th in merit resolutions. Go New York!

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says private sector workplace discrimination charge filings with the federal agency nationwide hit an unprecedented level of 99,922 during the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, 2010. All major categories of charge filings in the private sector (which include charges filed against state and local governments) increased. These include charges alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the Equal Pay Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

For the first time ever, retaliation under all statutes (36,258) surpassed race (35,890) as the most frequently filed charge, while allegations based on religion (3,790), disability (25,165) and age (23,264) increased.

Here’s the Businessweek ranking of states with EEOC merit resolutions:

1. Texas, 2nd largest state, population 25,145,561; merit resolutions,  1,780.

2. California, largest state, pop. 37,253,956; merit resolutions, 1,600.

3. Florida, 4th largest state,pop.  18,801,310; merit resolutions, 1,409.

4. Georgia, 9th largest state, pop. 9,687,653; merit resolutions, 1,288.

5. Indiana, 15th largest state, pop. 6,483,802; merit resolutions, 1,063.

6. Illinois, 5th largest state,pop.  12,830,632; merit resolutions, 1,001.

7. Pennsylvania, 6th largest state, pop. 12,702,379; merit resolutions, 860,

8. North Carolina, 10th largest state, pop. 9,535,483; merit resolutions, 823.

9. Tennessee, 17th largest state, pop.  6,346,105; merit resolutions, 800.

10. Ohio, 7th largest state, pop. 11,536,504; merit resolutions, 680.

11. Alabama, 23rd largest state, pop.4,779,736; merit resolutions, 650.

12. New York, 3rd largest state, pop. 19,378,102′ merit resolutions, 609.

13. Michigan, 8th largest state,  pop. 9,883,640; merit resolutions, 559.

14. Colorado, 22nd largest state, pop. 5,029,196; merit resolutions, 509.

15. Virginia, 12th largest state, pop. 8,001,024; merit resolutions, 499.

16. Arizona, 16th largest state, pop.,  6,392,017; merit resolutions, 496.

17. Missouri, 18th largest state, pop., 5,988,927; merit resolutions, 463.

18. Mississippi, 31st largest state, pop., 2,967,297; merit resolutions, 392.

19.  Arkansas, 32nd largest state, pop. 2,915,918; merit resolutions, 376.

20. Washington, 13th largest state, pop. 6,724,540;  merit resolutions, 353.

Definitions: Workplace Abuse & Bullying

There is no universally agreed upon definition for abuse or bullying.  There are many critical differences between workplace conflict and bullying.  The bully is often a supervisor who  abuses his/her authority. A bully boss intentionally, repeatedly and unfairly undermines or destroys the credibility of the target. The bully’s actions are  motivated by self-interest, not the good of the company.  The bully is often threatened by the target, who may be a talented, well liked and hard worker. What follows are authoritative definitions of workplace bullying  from diverse source. All point to the common theme that a bullying supervisor is seeking improper power and control over the target.   – PGB

_____________________________________

INTERNATIONAL

A  general definition for workplace bullying suggested by leading international  scholars on the topic is:

  • Harassing, offending, socially excluding someone or negatively affecting someone’s work tasks.
  • The interaction or process occurs repeatedly and regularly (e.g. weekly) and over a period of time (e.g. about six months).
  • The process escalates until the person confronted ends up in an inferior position and becomes the target of systematic negative social acts.

(Note: In some countries, a single incident of bullying is sufficient to trigger a civil remedy.)

* From  Katherine Lippel, Introduction, 32 COMP. LABOR LAW & POL’Y JOURNAL 2  (2010), citing Ståle Einarsen et al., The Concept of Bullying and Harassment at Work: The European Tradition, in Stale Einarsen, et al, BULLYING AND HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: DEVELOPMENT IN THEORY, RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 3, 32 (2d ed., forthcoming  2011).

____________________________________________

THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

The EEOC has an Enforcement Guidance entitled Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors  that discusses employer liability for harassment.

Generally, harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where

1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or
2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

Federal anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

*EEOC

EEOC ENFORCEMENT GUIDANCE

The EEOC has an Enforcement Guidance entitled Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors  that discusses employer liability for harassment.

Generally, harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where

1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or
2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

Federal anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

____________________________________________

Strategic Harassment: Bad Employers

Many lawsuits involve employers that use bullying tactics  strategically to rid the workplace of good employees to avoid a legal obligation.  For example, employers may  bully employees to force them to quit so The employer can  downsize without paying unemployment compensation or avoid a potential worker’s compensation claim. Many employers use bullying strategically to rid the workplace of employees who  demand pay or overtime to which they are entitled or who assert a legal right to organize collectively. One of the most common types of employee lawsuits involves retaliation, where an employer bullies an employee for complaining about illegal discrimination or harassment.

–  Patricia G. Barnes, J.D., author, Surviving Bullies, Queen Bees & Psychopaths in the Workplace.

______________________________________________

An April  2011  publication by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries contains an overview of workplace and corporate bullying. It  provides the following definition:

“Workplace bullying refers to repeated, unreasonable actions of individuals (or a group) directed towards an employee (or a group of employees), which are intended to intimidate, degrade, humiliate, or undermine; or which create a risk to the health or safety of the employee(s).”

_________________________________________________

The phenomenon of workplace abuse has been well studied in Europe, where it is called “mobbing.” The concept was introduced in the United States with the publication, Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace. Here is how the authors define mobbing:

  1. Assaults on dignity, integrity, credibility, and competence;
  2. Negative, humiliating, intimidating, abusive, malevolent, and controlling communication;
  3. Committed directly or indirectly in subtle or obvious ways;
  4. Perpetrated by  ≥1 staff member;
  5. Occurring in a continual, multiple, and systematic fashion over time;
  6. Portraying the victim as being at fault;
  7. Engineered to discredit, confuse, intimidate, isolate, and force the person into submission;
  8. Committed with the intent to force the person out;
  9. Representing the removal as the victim’s choice;
  10. Unrecognized, misinterpreted, ignored, tolerated, encouraged, or even instigated by management.

*  Source: Adapted  from Davenport N, Schwartz RD, Elliott GP. Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing; 1999:41.

_____________________________________________

GAINING INSIGHT FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE …

Although abuse in our society is silo-ed, in reality, abuse exists on a continuum. It starts in childhood and progresses until the problem behavior is addressed by the abuser or there is an intervention by an outside party.

Here is a definition of abuse used by the federal government in the context of domestic violence. Many aspects of this definition could apply to abuse in the workplace.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Violence Against Women says domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.

Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.

Some specific categories of domestic violence:

Physical Abuse: Hitting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, hair-pulling, biting, etc. Physical abuse also includes denying a partner medical care or forcing alcohol and/or drug use.

Sexual Abuse: Coercing or attempting to coerce any sexual contact or behavior without consent. Sexual abuse includes, but is certainly not limited to marital rape, attacks on sexual parts of the body, forcing sex after physical violence has occurred, or treating one in a sexually demeaning manner.

Emotional Abuse: Undermining an individual’s sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem. This may include, but is not limited to constant criticism, diminishing one’s abilities, name-calling, or damaging one’s relationship with his or her children.

Economic Abuse: Making or attempting to make an individual financially dependent by maintaining total control over financial resources, withholding one’s access to money, or forbidding one’s attendance at school or employment.

Psychological Abuse: Causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner’s family or friends; destruction of pets and property; and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school and/or work.

Workplace abuse usually does not include overt physical  behaviors – though it certainly can. For example, sexual harassment is a form of workplace abuse that can involve both men and women.

However, more often, workplace bullying involves emotional and economic abuse.

________________________

In April  2010 the Massachusetts’ state legislature unanimously passed what is called the toughest anti-bullying law in the nation with respect to schools. The law was precipitated by two cases of  Massachusetts youths committing suicide after allegedly being bullied. The legislation requires school employees to report all instances of bullying and require principals to investigate them. PGB

ACCORDING TO THE MASSACHUSETTS‘ 2010  SCHOOL ANTI-BULLYING LAW:

“Bullying”, the repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression or a physical act or gesture or any combination thereof, directed at a victim that:

(i)  causes physical or emotional harm to the victim or damage to the victim’s property;

(ii) places the victim in reasonable fear of harm to himself or of damage to his property;

(iii) creates a hostile environment at school for the victim;

(iv) infringes on the rights of the victim at school; or

(v) materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a  school. For the purposes of this section, bullying shall include cyberbullying.

—————————————————————————————–

THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION (ILO) SAYS …

Workplace bullying is one of the fastest growing complaints of workplace violence. It constitutes offensive behaviour through vindictive, cruel, malicious or humiliating attempts to undermine an individual or groups of employees through such activities as:

  • Making life difficult for those who have the potential to do the bully’s job better than the bully;
  • Shouting at staff to get things done;
  • Insisting that the bully’s way of doing things is the only right way;
  • Refusing to delegate because the bully feels no one else can be trusted;
  • Punishing others by constant criticism or by removing their responsibilities for being too competent.

*ILO

—————————————————————————————

Bullying behaviors may include:

  • making life difficult for those who have the potential to do the bully’s job better than the bully;
  • punishing others for being too competent by constant criticism or by removing their responsibilities, often giving them trivial tasks to do instead;
  • refusing to delegate because bullies feel they can’t trust anyone else;
  • shouting at staff to get things done;
  • persistently picking on people in front of others or in private;
  • insisting that a way of doing things is always right;
  • keeping individuals in their place by blocking their promotion;
  • if someone challenges a bully’s authority, overloading them with work and reducing the deadlines, hoping that they will fail at what they do; and
  • feeling envious of another’s professional or social ability, so setting out to make them appear incompetent, or make their lives miserable, in the hope of getting them dismissed or making them resign.

*Duncan Chappell and Vittorio Di Martino, VIOLENCE AT WORK, International Labour Organization (2006)

_______________________________________________

The Workplace Bullying Institute defines workplace bullying as “repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators that takes one or more of the following forms:

  •  Verbal abuse.
  • Offensive conduct/behaviors that are threatening, humiliating, or intimidating.
  • Work interference, i.e. sabotage, that prevents work from being done.

_______________________________________________

PSYCHOLOGICAL TERROR

“Workplace bullying is traumatic because it is unexpected and always perceived as undeserved and unjustified (Keashly and Neuman, 2005). Abuse is not a requisite aspect of work duties, is unrelated to job demands, and is, consequently, perceived as unwarranted. The shock of being singled out for repeated abuse can be as traumatic as divorce or a loved one’s death (Mikkelsen and Einarsen, 2002) and can evoke levels of anxiety and psychological pain necessitating therapeutic help (Randall, 2001). What makes this experience especially corrosive is that it is ongoing, frequent, enduring, and escalatory—typically worsening over time. The trauma is also a function of the intensive fear and dread bullying creates. In fact, bullying and mobbing are often called ‘psychological terror’ (Leymann, 1996: 375).”

– Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and …: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73, 406-433.