The settlement provides monetary and non-monetary relief for Amira to resolve claims that ERA filed on her behalf last year with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging that Amira’s employer, a national operator of residential facilities and communities for seniors, had subjected Amira to harassment, other forms of discrimination, and ultimately terminated her because she was pregnant and sought to exercise her right to take pregnancy-related leave. Amira also alleged that the company discriminated against her and other caregivers based on their race and national origin.

Amira’s case is unfortunately not unusual.  ERA has seen a sharp rise in pregnancy discrimination and accommodation complaints in recent years, a trend mirrored at the federal level. (Click here to see ERA’s May 2012 report, Expecting a Baby, Not A Lay-off:  Why Federal Law Should Require the Reasonable Accommodation of Pregnant Workers, noting a 54% rise in pregnancy discrimination claims filed with the EEOC between 1997 and 2010.)  ERA Staff Attorney Mia Munro is proud to have represented Amira and observes that, “It takes real courage and determination for women like Amira to come forward and complain about these injustices.  We are very pleased that the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.”

ERA Legal Director Jennifer Reisch further added that, “This case shows how discrimination against pregnant workers and the failure to provide reasonable accommodations that would enable women to keep working during pregnancy are particularly acute problems, and have especially devastating economic consequences, for women in low-wage jobs and industries.”

ERA fights for women like Amira because we believe that providing pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations on the job is essential to fulfilling the promise of equal opportunity in employment.  This is also why ERA is a strong supporter of the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), a bill which would require employers to provide pregnant workers with reasonable accommodations.  Learn more about this important issue and take action to support the PWFA.

*Not her real name

Michelle came to ERA for help. On November 13, 2009, after a closely-watched sex discrimination trial against the City of Fresno, the jury found in favor of Michelle, awarding her $2.46 million in damages. ERA and the Oakland law firm of Siegel & Yee represented Michelle in the lawsuit. The case is Maher v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No. 08-CV-00050-OWW-SMS, United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Read ERA’s press release about Michelle’s victory here.

After the verdict, one juror hugged Michelle and said, “If my son were trapped in a burning building, I would want you to be the fire fighter to save him.” Michelle was overjoyed at the verdict: “I felt numb, for the past few years I have been telling my story over and over again. Now I can finally move on with my life.”

Unfortunately, decades after many fire departments have opened their doors to female firefighters, fire service still remains a male-dominated profession. According to a October 2011 article in the San Jose Mercury News, nationally, only 3.7% percent of firefighters and paramedics are women.

Working in an environment free of sex discrimination and sex-based stereotypes is crucial to the entry, retention and promotion of women in male-dominated professions like fire service. ERA needs your support to combat hiring barriers and glass ceilings for women who work in majority-male industries.

While the case, Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, continued long after the graduation of Arezou, Christine and Lauren, the women racked up a series of victories for Title IX culminating in the settlement of the case in February 2012.

In August 2011, the three women scored a major win after a three-week bench trial on the issue of whether UC Davis violated Title IX when they were students. A federal district court in Sacramento found in their favor, ruling that UCD dropped more than 60 intercollegiate sports opportunities for women without replacing them – soundly defeating the University’s claim that it had been expanding opportunities for women to satisfy Title IX.

Other legal milestones included a landmark win at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which rejected the imposition of procedural hurdles to Title IX suits challenging athletic participation inequities and creation of a fund that has awarded over $70,000 in grants to developing female athletes on the UC Davis campus. More information about the legal victories here: http://www.equalrights.org/media/2012/MansourianPressReleaseFinal.pdf

Shortly the lawsuit was filed, women’s wrestling made its Olympic debut in 2004 and today thousands of girls now participate in wrestling across the country.

Christine: “All we ever wanted was to represent UC Davis in sports. We litigated this case for nearly 10 difficult years and missed that opportunity. It should not have to take that long to achieve justice, but we are happy that the lives of many young women attending UC Davis after we did have benefited and will benefit from our fight for Title IX.”

Lauren: “The case paved the way for so many girls who wanted to wrestle or participate in other non-traditional sports. For that, we are proud.”

Arezou: “I have fought for women’s rights in college athletics for the past 10 years and the change it has brought for the future of women athletes has been worth the battle.”

Fortunately for Rose, the California Fair Employment and Housing Commission recently issued amended regulations, effective on December 30, 2012, that clarify that employers must continue providing health insurance coverage during both pregnancy disability leave AND bonding leave under the California Family Rights Act. ERA was able to use those amended regulations to ensure that Rose could take the leave she needed without losing much needed health insurance coverage.

Pregnant workers and families across California will begin the new year with many important increased protections due to amendments to the regulations for the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. These amendments were informed by years of experience of a coalition of California legal services organizations (including ERA), that saw firsthand the issues that most pregnant workers face in the workplace. Below are some of the important changes that were made:

Clarification of the FEHA’s reasonable pregnancy accommodation requirement

• When an employer becomes aware that an employee might need a pregnancy accommodation, the employer must engage in a good faith conversation with a pregnant employee who needs an accommodation to identify a reasonable accommodation. This means that the employer cannot automatically and categorically deny the worker a pregnancy accommodation upon receiving a request, without discussing options and alternatives.
• The regulations now provide examples of reasonable pregnancy accommodation, including: providing break time and space for breast feeding or pumping, providing the employee with a sitting stool, modifying an employee’s work duties or schedule, and providing additional leave to an employee once she exhausts her four months of pregnancy disability leave.

Clarification of the FEHA’s pregnancy disability leave requirement

• Employees can be entitled to pregnancy disability leave for a broad array of pregnancy-related conditions, including: severe morning sickness, gestational diabetes, hypertension, preeclampsia, and post-partem depression.
• The only defense to failing to reinstate an employee when she returns from her pregnancy disability leave is if the employer has a legitimate business reason that is not related to the fact that the employee took the leave. The regulations no longer allow an employer to fail to reinstate an employee when holding her position open during her pregnancy disability leave would substantially undermine the business operations of the employer.
• It may be unlawful for an employer to force a pregnant employee on leave when the employee has not requested leave.

Clarification that employers must provide language appropriate notice to employees that are not English proficient.

If you are an employee that needs more information about your employer’s obligations to provide pregnancy accommodations or leave, please call ERA’s Advice and Counseling Hotline at 1-800-839-4ERA.

The action follows on the heels of a troubling report by the investigative unit of NBC Bay Area on October 30, 2012, which revealed widespread ignorance of and non-compliance with basic requirements of Title IX among 200 Bay Area schools, including its requirement that schools designate a “Title IX coordinator” to receive and investigate and act upon sex discrimination and harassment complaints. The investigation reveals that principals at some Bay Area schools were unaware of Title IX and could not identify the school’s Title IX coordinator or if the school even had one. See the complete NBC Bay Area video report: “Bay Area Schools Ignoring Title IX?”

Equal Rights Advocates Executive Director Noreen Farrell commented: “Ignorance of Title IX’s basic requirements by school leaders forty years after its passage is shameful and it is hurting girls. Equal Rights Advocates hears from students and parents across California and the country who don’t know their rights, and have no idea where to turn when they face sexual harassment or other discriminatory treatment at school.”

In response to the disturbing results of the NBC investigation, Equal Rights Advocates is filing formal Public Records Act requests with over 100 school districts in the Bay Area requesting documents that evidence or describe their efforts to comply with Title IX, including the identity and contact information for their Title IX coordinators, any written policies and procedures relating to compliance with Title IX, documents relating to Title IX training programs, and the districts’ responses to any Title IX complaints that have been filed over the last three years (redacting any personal information to protect the privacy of those who are involved.)

“Our goal in collecting this information will be to identify gaps in Title IX compliance and to encourage San Francisco Bay Area school district officials to take immediate steps to bring their districts into compliance,” said Farrell. ERA Legal Director Jennifer Reisch added: “ERA intends to enforce Title IX. Millions of girls depend on it.”

About ERA: Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), founded in 1974, is a national civil rights organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. Through its campaign approach—incorporating public education, legislative advocacy, and litigation—ERA seeks to assist women and girls throughout a life-long continuum: ensuring equality in their educational experience, combating sex discrimination in the workforce, and advocating for workplaces hospitable to working families. To learn more about ERA’s work, visit www.equalrights.org.

Contact:
Pam@turnerstrategies.com
402-305-0799

Equal Rights Advocates Executive Director Noreen Farrell available for comment
nfarrell@equalrights.org; 510-701-8243

(SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – Sept. 22, 2012) A federal court has given the plaintiffs in the California-focused Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., lawsuit the green light to proceed with their gender discrimination class action against the giant retailer.

In rejecting Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Charles R. Breyer, of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, yesterday upheld the plaintiffs’ right to proceed as a class and present evidence that Wal-Mart and its subsidiary Sam’s Club discriminated against its California region female workers in pay and promotion.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the amended class action, filed in U.S. District Court in October 2011, is in full compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s new guidelines for class actions in employment and discrimination cases. Those guidelines arose from the Supreme Court’s decision in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision.

“We have maintained all along that the Supreme Court’s decision did not preclude us from seeking justice for the women of Wal-Mart through class actions consistent with its new guidelines and standards, nor did the Court rule on the merits of the case,” said lead counsel Brad Seligman, of the Impact Fund. “This decision vindicates our argument.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, adds: “The women of Wal-Mart have been waiting for more than a decade for their day in court. Sex discrimination in pay and promotion hurts lives and families. We applaud the decision giving our clients the green light to prove their claims.”

The case began in the same U.S. District Court in June 2001 when the plaintiffs brought suit against Wal-Mart on behalf of a nationwide class of female workers alleging pay and promotion discrimination. The District Court certified the national class in 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision in 2010. Wal-Mart appealed The Ninth Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision in June 2011.

Plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel Joseph Sellers, of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, states: “We have strong new evidence that Wal-Mart has a long and egregious history of pay and promotion discrimination throughout its California stores. We welcome the opportunity to present this evidence to the Court.”

Relying on well-documented discrimination in pay and management promotion practices, the named plaintiffs represent more than 100,000 current or former women employees—with the exception of store managers and pharmacists— of California Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores. The class includes women who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and were subject to pay and promotion discrimination at any time since Dec. 26, 1998.

Named California plaintiffs are current Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., employees Betty Dukes, an 18-year employee who works at a cashier/greeter in a Contra Costa County Wal-Mart, and Christine Kwapnoski, a 26-year employee who works as an assistant manager in a Contra Costa County Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart. Also named are former employees Edith Arana, of Los Angeles County; Deborah Gunter, of Riverside County; and Patricia Surgeson, of Sacramento County — all of whom worked at Wal-Mart stores in California.

Judge Breyer set a hearing for Feb. 15, 2013, on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

In addition to the case before the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, another case class action pay and discrimination case against Wal-Mart, Odle v. Wal-Mart has been filed in a federal court in Texas, and other regional cases are expected to be filed elsewhere in the nation this year.

For more information on the case, visit www.walmartclass.com.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., plaintiffs are represented by the Impact Fund, Berkeley, Calif.; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), San Francisco, Calif.; Davis Cowell & Bowe, LLP, San Francisco, Calif.; and the Law Office of Sheila Thomas.

CONTACT:
Noreen Farrell, Executive Director- Equal Rights Advocates, 415-575-2398; nfarrell@equalrights.org

San Francisco—Equal Rights Advocates announced today that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) has reached the 100 co-sponsor mark and continues to build support nationally. The PWFA would ensure that pregnant women are not forced out of jobs unnecessarily or denied reasonable job modifications that would allow them to continue working. The bill was introduced by Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA) and Susan Davis (D-CA) on May 8, 2012 and is supported by Equal Rights Advocates and other women’s advocacy organizations, unions, and business groups.

“California has led the nation in requiring reasonable accommodations to allow pregnant women to keep working as long as they are willing and able and it is high time for the federal government to follow suit by passing this legislation,” stated Noreen Farrell, Executive Director of Equal Rights Advocates, a national legal advocacy organization for women and girls. A recent study by Equal Rights Advocates, highlighting California’s 12 years of experience with a similar law, shows that litigation and discrimination claims decreased and that pregnancy accommodations often involve practices helpful to all employees and can benefit an employer’s bottom line.

To learn more about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and ERA’s Report, Expecting a Baby Not A Lay-Off: Why Federal Law Should Require the Reasonable Accommodation of Pregnant Workers, see www.equalrights.org.

The legislation has the support of a broad coalition of civil rights and women’s advocacy organizations, unions, and business associations, including: A Better Balance; the AFL-CIO; the American Association of University Women; the American Civil Liberties Union; the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; California Women’s Law Center; Equal Rights Advocates; Hadassah; the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center; Legal Momentum; the Main Street Alliance; the National Partnership for Women & Families; the National Organization for Women Foundation; the National Women’s Law Center; and many others.

Equal Rights Advocates is a nonprofit legal organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls.

The Paid Family Leave (PFL) law established the country’s first family leave insurance program in California. The PFL program provides virtually all California workers with income replacement for up to six weeks when they need to take time off from work to care for a new child or a seriously ill family member. The PFL program is entirely funded by workers’ contributions to the State Disability Insurance fund, and research shows that the program has offered many positive benefits to both workers and employers.

According to a report co-authored by Ruth Milkman, Professor of Sociology at the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center and Academic Director of CUNY’s Murphy Labor Institute, though most California workers are already paying into this program, many are still unaware of their right to use it when they need it the most. Latino and immigrant communities, renters, and low-wage workers with less education who would most benefit from the law are least likely to know about it.

“Every day I work with women who are the primary breadwinners and caregivers for their families and they are struggling to get by,” said Nicole Marquez, attorney at Equal Rights Advocates, a non-profit organization that assists low-wage workers with legal issues, including monolingual Spanish-speaking Latina clients. “These are the women who need to know about their rights under the Paid Family Leave Law—that they can take the time to recover from giving birth, or to take care of an ill parent without their family slipping into poverty.”

ERA’s role in the Coalition has been instrumental in ensuring that more workers in California are aware of their rights. For example, ERA provides a toll-free multilingual advice and counseling line, where people can call and get information about their legal rights under the PFL law. Additionally, ERA helped develop a bilingual informational video (in English and Spanish).

To mark the 10th year anniversary of the PFL law, the California Work & Family Coalition is conducting a year-long statewide outreach and education campaign to reach underserved communities with information about the program. The Coalition has developed free bilingual resources in English and Spanish including a poster on six key California laws that help parents, an informational video on the State Disability Insurance and Paid Family Leave programs, and a website about the PFL program. In addition, the Employment Development Department (EDD) that administers the PFL program offers brochures in multiple languages including Cambodian, Chinese, Korean, Laotian, Spanish, Thai and Vietnamese. To view these resources and learn more, visit www.paidfamilyleave.org.

Equal Rights Advocates is a nonprofit legal organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. To learn more about our work, visit www.equalrights.org.

On May 8, 2012, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) was introduced by U.S. Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA), and other legislators. HR 5467 would require employers to provide pregnant workers with reasonable accommodations to enable them to continue working during a financially crucial time in their lives.

“Working families need and want to keep working. ERA strongly supports the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act because similar protections under California law make the case for federal change,” said Noreen Farrell, ERA’s Executive Director. “Pregnant women are working with accommodations. Businesses are benefiting from happy and productive long-term employees. It is a win-win.”

The Report first examines why current federal law has not consistently ensured the minor accommodation of employees who are able to work during their pregnancies. It then tracks the development of state laws that require accommodations for pregnant workers, with a particular focus on the sweeping success of California’s pregnancy accommodation law, as support for change at the federal level.

The California data considered in ERA’s Report – ERA’s Hotline and experience with clients, cases based on state pregnancy accommodation laws, and statistical data about complaints filed with California’s state administrative agency – provide important insight into how California employees and business have fared since California’s pregnancy accommodation law went into effect in 2000.

Key findings of include:

• The number of court and administrative decisions involving California’s pregnancy accommodation law is very low, suggesting that the law has not prompted a flood of litigation.
• The accommodations sought are generally modest, reasonable, and easily met by employers
•  Accommodation laws are particularly important for protecting low-wage hourly workers.
•  Pregnancy accommodations often involve practices helpful to all employees and can benefit the employer’s bottom line.
•  California’s pregnancy accommodation law has not prompted more pregnancy discrimination.  In contrast to federal law discrimination charges, which have risen by 54 percent since 1997, the number of pregnancy discrimination charges filed with California’s state agency has decreased since 1997.

The Report contains a number of case studies that show the need for the new federal law. The story of Maria is a case in point. Maria handles security duties for a California employer. When Maria discovered that she was pregnant, she requested a stool to sit on and more frequent duty rotation so she could move more throughout the day. Her employer refused to accommodate her pregnancy limitations and placed her on involuntary early leave. ERA intervened on Maria’s behalf and informed the employer about the requirements of California’s pregnancy accommodation law. After a productive brainstorming session exploring possible solutions, the matter was quickly resolved without undue stress to Maria and without litigation. Rather than sit home without pay, Maria continued to be a productive employee for months. She preserved her Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for when she needed it most.

Women in other states who are profiled in the report were not so lucky. Angie, a train conductor in Mississippi, was forced to take three extra months of unpaid leave instead of allowing her to work with the occasional assistance of willing co-workers. The stress and financial strain was immense for Angie, who was already anxious about becoming the sole support for her new family. Equal Rights Advocates was limited by federal and Mississippi law in its ability to assist Angie.

Celebrate Mother’s Day by supporting the PWFA at www.equalrights.org

The WISE Fund was borne out of Brust v. Regents of the University of California, a class action suit brought by women club athletes against UC Davis that alleged that women were getting too few intercollegiate athletic opportunities. “We are very excited that this key term of our Title IX suit continues to benefit women athletes at Davis,” stated Noreen Farrell, Managing Attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. ERA served as co-counsel for the athletes, along with the Sturdevant Law Firm and Equity Legal.

The agreed-upon Brust settlement also sets out a 10-year plan for UC Davis to reach specific proportions of male and female athletes by the 2019-20 school year. The university will either add women’s intercollegiate teams or will take other measures to ensure equal accommodation of student interest in varsity sports. UC Davis has also agreed to contribute $110,000 to a fund for the development of club sports, which the plaintiffs will distribute consistent with the purposes of the lawsuit.

The suit, Brust v. Regents of the University of California, was filed as a companion class action case to a still pending Title IX suit filed by women wrestlers in 2003, who challenge discrimination they faced at Davis arising from their removal from the varsity wrestling program. The wrestler case, Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, proceeds to trial starting Monday at a federal court in Sacramento. ERA, the Sturdevant Law Firm, Equity Legal, and the law firm of Duckworth, Peters, Lebowitz Olivier LLP also represent plaintiffs in the Mansourian case.

The WISE Fund, administered by the Women’s Foundation of California, awarded several grants for team-related expenses to club sport teams for the 2010-2011 school year to support development of women athletes. The recipients ranged from women’s rugby to women’s field hockey club teams.

The fund was lauded by UC Davis club lacrosse team members Miriam Kolni and Alexandra Pene. “The WISE Fund provided us with the funds to travel to Georgia and to play against higher ranking teams that we would otherwise have been unable to play,” said Alexandra Pene, a junior and lacrosse club team member. “Playing higher ranking teams, increased our ranking, which allowed us to become a leading contender at the top in the nation.”

“Most of the time you see men lacrosse teams playing on ESPN, so that is what the public sees,” said Pene. “But I think more and more girls are playing sports and it’s just as important to have those opportunities available to them as it would be for boys.”

Having the support also freed up students’ time to focus on academics “instead of stressing out over funding for your team’s next competition,” as both Pene and Kolni said.

Kelsey Brust, lead plaintiff in the Brust case that led to the establishment of the WISE Fund, stated, “While the WISE Funds will one day be spent, I am proud that our Title IX suit made a difference at Davis and that other women will continue to benefit from it for years to come.”

As noted by ERA’s Noreen Farrell, “Although we have made great progress, our work continues to ensure an equal education for the young men and women who will be our leaders tomorrow.”