Emily
MikeOne of my graduate professors recently relayed a personal anecdote to the class, about her experiences during her very first job interview. This was…let’s just say, a few decades ago, and she was asked the following question: “Are you in love?” The class chuckled because the question is, of course, ridiculous, and completely inappropriate in a professional context. But the rationale for such a inquiry was quite simply an attempt to discern the likelihood that a woman would get married, get pregnant, and quit her job.
Today, thankfully, employers are no longer legally allowed to use women’s personal romantic or reproductive choices as criteria for hiring or firing. But that doesn’t mean it never happens. Case in point: The international pharmaceutical giant Novartis is in headlines after its US unit was found guilty of sex discrimination– particularly as it pertains to pregnancy. The verdict came yesterday from a Manhattan jury, who so far has awarded the plaintiffs $3.4 million, with decisions about punitive damages to be decided later.
Twelve women were named specific plaintiffs, all of whom were sales representatives in the company. There are 5,600 total women in the class action lawsuit. The women had been routinely overlooked for promotions, paid lower wages, and were subject to a generally hostile environment.
Particularly upsetting are a few stories at the heart of the case. One woman testified that she was told to get an abortion by her manager, when she informed him of her pregnancy. Another woman disclosed that she was purposely excluded from professional informal gatherings– namely, a meeting of male colleagues at a strip club. A mother of twins explained that she had repeatedly lost opportunities for promotion to men with far worse sales numbers. And still, another woman testified that her manager explained why he didn’t like to hire young women. He reportedly said:
“First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage.”
This case comes about a month after a one million-member class-action suit was announced against Wal-Mart (notorious for its gender discrimination). Back in 2002, Wal-Mart was ordered to pay $220,000 because of its practice of rejecting pregnant applicants. Furthermore, this study found that there was a 39% jump in pregnancy discrimination complaints from the 90s to the 2000s.
I’m glad we live in a decade and country where this sort of thing is not technically lawful. However, lawsuits are incredibly costly and time-consuming, not to mention emotionally exhausting. It makes one wonder about the amount of unreported, or under-fought instances that exist every day.
Tomorrow, lawyers for the women of Novartis begin pressing for $285 million in punitive damages.
As for my graduate professor, many years ago, she simply answered her recruiters’ question. “No,” she said. “I’m not in love.”
She got the job.
Filed under: Law, Workplace Tagged: | Employment Gender Discrimination, novartis, pregnancy, sex discrimination, sexism, wal-mart, Workplace
