Friday, March 30, 2007

Just for fun

This isn't really relevant to anything, but I thought it was funny. When I read the case of Jespersen v. Harrah's I wanted to see what else was out there about it so I google searched it and found this employment law blog. It's written by an employment law professor and it's sort of a sarcastic response to it. I personally felt that the court was very wrong in deciding that Harrah's hadn't discriminated on the basis of sex stereotyping so I thought this was funny. Maybe you will, maybe you won't, I just thought I'd put it out there.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Sexual Harassment of Minors

Here is an article I found at the EEOC's website about a company that owns and operates McDonald's franchises in Arizona and California who recently settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for over half a million dollars with 8 young female employees. Particularly shocking was the fact that several of the young women were only 14 years old at the time and that the male supervisor guilty of the harassment was a repeat offender. In fact, the company knew of the harassment and failed to do anything to protect the workers. In addition to the monetary settlement the EEOC is ordering the company to educate current and future employees on sexual harassment in the workplace.

It surprised me that an extremely large franchise such as McDonald's would not already have some sort of sexual harassment education policy in place. I understand that the practical implications of this may be difficult, but do you think it would be a good idea for the government and the EEOC to make such education policies mandatory? I was also wondering (maybe Professor Prenkert can help me out on this one) if the outcomes/punishments are any different in situations where the plaintiffs are under 18?

Marines ban tattoos below elbows, knees to preserve their image

If you read today's Indiana Daily student there was an article in there talking about how the Marines are banning any new extra large tattoos below the elbow or the knee. The Marines say that is harmful to the Corps’ spit-and-polish image. So what do you think? If you are putting your life on the line for the marines and the United States should you be able to get a tattoo where ever you want? How do you think a certain suit against this appearance code would stand up in court? Let me know what you think. Here is the original article.

Timeclock Scanners result in Religious Bias Suits

Businesses have been instituting hand scanners for their employees to clock-in and out of work each day. Two nursing home employees and a driver for Hertz Corp. refused to place their hands on the scanners for religious reasons. Their claim is based on their belief in the Book of Revelation which instructs believers not to "take the 'Mark of the Beast' on their foreheads or on their right hands." The employees believe the biometric hand scanners will place the "Mark of the Beast" on their hands. They are asking for an alternative time-keeping method. Read the news article here and the complaint here.

Other employers in the United States where this has happened have allowed employees to use their left hand for the hand scanner. There is no formerly published judicial opinions about if these people have to be accommodated.

A similar situation in New Zealand in 2004 ended with victory for the employer. The Employment Relations Authority of New Zealand found no basis for a discrimination claim because the biometric scanners do not actually imprint a mark on the hand. They do not even store the imprint or an image of a fingerprint.

The article mentions that as long ago as 1995 Pat Robertson told viewers of his TV show ("The 700 Club") that ... "The Bible says the time is going to come that you cannot buy or sell except with a mark placed on your hand or on your forehead. It is happening, ladies and gentlemen, exactly according to the Book of Revelation.”

I'm interested in what the class thinks about these cases. Some of us seemed skeptical of the "non-traditional" religions such as the Church of Body Modification in the Cloutier v. Costco case, what is the consensus on the more intensive or extreme believers of traditional religions?

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Army Recruiter Investiaged for Bigoted Emails

After completing the assignment for today, on law-related disputes over dress or appearance codes, I decided to see if there were any news related articles dealing with sexual orientation discrimination. I managed to find quite a shocker: Army Recruiter Investigated for Bigoted Emails

Corey Andrew had posted his resume on Careerbuilder.com. One of the employers to respond to his posted resume was the Army. After Andrew expressed his disinterest, he decided to ask the recruiter (Ramode) about the Army's gay and lesbian policy. "The fireworks set off when he revealed he's openly gay." The email conversation that followed, especially from the recruiter's end, is extremely shocking.

"Officials say for now Ramode is still working in the military, but not in recruiting. Andrew is hoping she'll be removed from the post for good, especially for violating the Department of Defense's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in which recruiters are barred from asking applicants about their sexual orientation."

Does anyone know the reasoning behind the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military? I understand what it is, but not why it is even in place. What does this policy even accomplish? It is essentially hypocritical considering the fact that there is the potential for a gay individual to be in the military as long as they do not openly express their homosexuality. So, I ask again, what does this actually accomplish, and why is it still being upheld? Aside from that, I would like to hear your reaction to the email conversation that took place between Andrew and Ramode.

Judge Dismisses Wal-Mart Pharmacist's Contraception Suit

In Madison, WI a pharmacist was fired from Walmart because he refused to fill birth control prescriptions, blaming a violation of his Roman Catholic beliefs. The court found that the pharmacist was rightly terminated because the employer had accommodated his religous views by having other pharmacists fill birth control prescriptions. I think that his firing was warranted because he had a history of refusing to even find other assistance for the customers who needed birth control, and his service to them was found to be offensive. If an employer makes accommodations to appease a person's religious views, then that person should value the employer's effort and continue with his or her job, without attempting to make the problem worse, such as the pharmacist in this case did.

There was a bill that was sent to Congress that would allow pharmacists to refuse prescriptions due to their religious rights, and put the burden on the pharmacy to get the prescription filled rather than on the pharmacist or the customer. My question is, is this proposed mandatory accommodation a guaranteed undue hardship on the employer? Pharmacists have a highly technical job, and I don't feel as though there is an extensive number of pharmacists in every community prepared to get up and run to a pharmacy to hand out one prescription. Even if the employers were to find pharmacists who would distribute birth control, would they have to ask that in an interview just to be prepared? If so, wouldn't that be discriminatory hiring, to seek out someone who was not as conservative in their Christian (in this case) beliefs? In this case, I believe that our national laws which legalize birth control should supercede the religious right of the individual pharmacists, and there should not be legislation passed that would force an undue hardship on employers in order to protect the few pharmacists that decide they want to control the medicinal distribution. Any thoughts?

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Are School Dress Codes A Violation Of Civil Liberties?

I found this old article from MTV.com that talks about Dress codes for schools, and thought it was interesting even though it might not be relevant to the context in which we are talking about it. Unless its a private school that makes you wear uniforms and won't accept you as a student if you dont wear the required clothes. Let me know whether you think private schools of even public schools for that matter should have a dress code? and whether it is a violation of our civil liberties? Here are some direct quotes from the article as well as the original article.


Does a dress code help to eliminate gang activity and make schools safer, or is this just an example of schools trying to eliminate individuality?

This decentralization of policy, and the vagueness of the relationship between a wardrobe and student safety, has resulted in the wide range of dress codes in American schools. Perhaps not surprisingly, the people most effected "students" are often divided on the issue as well, as exemplified by the opinions of two people who wrote to MTV News regarding the Wichita story.

"Racial and religiously offensive clothing should be banned. That is about as far as it should go," said Jason Paar, a 17-year-old from Olean, New York. "If you discriminate against a type of preference, you are discriminating against the student. That should never happen."

"Bitch all you want, demand that a public school not have dress-code policies, or that this is a violation of our civil liberties," said Lara Niedzwiedzki, a 21-year-old Chicagoan. "This principal is doing nothing wrong by setting a dress code in place. Don't we have bigger problems to worry about?"

Monday, March 26, 2007

Burger Chain To Pay $150,000 To Resolve EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

As a bit of a continuation of our discussion during class today, I found this article posted by the EEOC regarding a fast food chain in Bellevue, Washington who fired a worker for having visible tattoos circling his wrists. The tattoos were awarded to the worker as a ritual rite of passage for his ancient Egyptian religion. They did not cause any sort of issue with his co-workers, supervisors, or customers, but he was fired when a new manager compared his tattoos with the restaurant dress code that prohibits employees from having visible tattoos. Ultimately, the employee was awarded $150,000 for his religious discrimination and wrongful termination under Title VII, because the employer did not attempt to make reasonable accommodations for the employee and the employee's violation of the dress code did not cause an undue hardship on the restaurant.

The thing that I found particularly interesting about this case and our discussion today was the idea that was presented in class that one of the bases for religious accommodations in the workplace should be more concerned with the major religions of the world. In this case, the employee followed a very unorthodox religion by American standards, and still won. Similar to the body modification discussion, there needs to be a point at which we draw a line with joining "religions" to help your cause, but I am encouraged to see that people who belong to less powerful relgions are still protected in our socity. However, with the increasing religious diversity in the United States I am beginning to find it offensive how many organizations and businesses in the United States center their policies around "Christian values" such as the restaurant in this case had. Does anyone else feel this way? Obviously, this country was founded on these principles but it seems to me like they are being forced upon people more and more in recent times, pushing our country in a dangerous direction in society which is trickling down into more prevalent religious discrimination in the workplace. How can we protect our country from this problem which continues to infringe on people's First Amendment rights?

Continuation from class discussion..

So I was wondering during class, does being hired at an organization BEFORE a policy comes into effect make any difference in terms of accountability? I'm just thinking that in realms other than employment law we see this occurring - such as when universities change graduation requirements but only hold incoming freshman accountable for the changes. Does anyone know of any examples of this in employment law? Would this be more fair or less fair that imposing new requirements on all employees regardless of hire date?

Religion and Organization Leaders

Last week Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy appeared as the keynote speaker at a banquet for a group called the Indiana Family Institute. The Indiana Family Institute is a highly conservative group whose objective is , according to their website, "To preserve pro-family policy already within State Government and push for additional policies that will strengthen Indiana families." Controversy arose among some because Dungy expressed his support for the group's efforts to amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Those upset by his comments state that the people which make up the Colts' fan base are many and diverse in nature and that as the face of an NFL franchise, he should keep his religious beliefs to himself. Supporters of Dungy cite the freedom of speech and religion and praise him for standing up for what he believes in. While Dungy has every right to express his opinions, my question is whether or not anyone thinks he has an obligation to act in the best interest of the Colts as an organization? If so, I would have to say that appearing at an event like this - which could potentially alienate the organization's customers (the fans in this case) - would certainly not be in their best interest.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Speak English or No Service

Recently, I read in article on Foxnews.com that reported a Ohio bar owner, Tom Ullum, was reprimanded for placing a sign that said, "For Service Speak English." An agency called the Housing Opportunities Made Equal filed a complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, which later ruled the sign to be discriminatory. In light of the complaint, Ullum replaced the sign with "Here We Speak English." A director with the agency said they will not take any action against the new sign because they said it will not limit service. My question is that shouldn't the agency be concerned with the intentions of Ullum, the creator of the original sign? The reason I mention this is because Ullum might have only replaced the sign because of the complaint, but he may still deny service to non-native speaking English customers. I was wondering if you guys think there is any recourse that the Ohio Civil Rights Union or other agency can do to insure his hiring practices and customer service remain fair?

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Discrimination or loss of confidence?

This morning I found a story about a public official who recently lost his job. What's of particular interest in this story is the fact that this individual lost his job after it was discovered he was planning to undergo a sex change. The official, Steve Stanton, was fired because other employees that work alongside Stanton "lost confidence in him". Although it appears as though the discovery of the Stanton's sex change may not have been the reason that he was fired, it is possible that others who work with Stanton did lose confidence in him. It might seem discriminatory to fire someone because of their sexual orientation, but what if the prejudices of others truly causes them to lose confidence in that individual? Is such a situation a form of discrimination or were the other officials following their civic duty by removing someone that they didn't believe was fit for a leadership position? Is such a situation different from learning that an individual is a Purdue fan? For instance, if Elmer Fudd announced that he supported Purdue while he worked as a representative of Bloomington, would city officials be justified in firing him because they lost confidence in him?

It's important to point out that Stanton's contract allowed for him to be fired without cause. However, I still think it's important to determine as to whether or not the actions of the city officials that fired Stanton serve as a form of discrimination.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/24/sexchange.firing.ap/index.html

Friday, March 23, 2007

Creationism vs. Evolution

Two days ago, a news report came out of Oregon about a part-time high school biology teacher who was fired only after eight days on the job for including Bible references in material he provided to students. There were also reports that he showed a PowerPoint presentation linking Nazi Germany, Planned Parenthood, and evolution together. The Sisters School Board released a statement that Kris Helphinstine deviated from the curriculum of the theory of evolution and in doing so was fired. Helphinstine said "Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry" and his his purpose was to get his students to think critically about the subject. Adding to Helphinstine's defense, he argues that he did not teach creationism in any way and purposely stayed away from teaching that to his students. After our discussion in class this week about the role religion plays in discrimination suits, do you believe the Sisters School Board was in error by firing Helphinstine? For the interest of discussion, lets say Helphinstine did not discuss creationism directly as he claims, do you think his Bible references were enough evidence for the school board to relieve him of this teaching duties? Let me know what you think.

Refusing to work Sundays...

A woman who worked at a public library refused to work on Sunday because of her religious beliefs. Because of her stand, she was fired. Recently, she won the religious discrimination case against them and got her job back. The jury awarded her $53,712 in damages, representing her lost library wages minus what she earned at other jobs after being fired. "What price is my religious freedom? What is it worth?" Rehm said. "It's not a matter of displaying the Ten Commandments. It's being able to live the Ten Commandments, and that's what my employer was asking me not to do."

Want a pink slip with that shake?

Sorry, I know this sounds odd, but I found this story at msnbc.com and had to post it. Some openly gay police officers in the Philippines were given a warning when they were discovered to be walking with a "sway" in their hips while on duty. They were told that if they didn't change these ways they could lose their jobs. Title VII doesn't protect against sexual orientation, but this seems a little risky to issue that sort of warning, in my opinion. I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem if a female officer had a little sway in her hips...just a thought. :o)

Sexual Assault Reports are Increasing in the U.S. Military

Yesterday, I read an article on Foxnews.com that states that sexual assault reports in the U.S. military increased by 24 percent in 2006. The Pentagon claims that there were approximately 3,000 reports filed in 2006 compared to 2,400 reports the previous year. According to the military, they specify sexual assault as rape, nonconsensual sodomy, indecent assault, and attempts to commit any of those as sexual assault. While I was reading this article, I was particularly interested in the military's new program that would allow victims of sexual assault to seek confidential counseling/health care while they consider pursing legal action. This type of program may allow more victims of sexual assault to come forward without the threat of retaliation from their attacker or military counterparts. Programs like this confidential reporting system may be one reason why the military believes that the reporting of assaults has steadily increased. Do you think that the military has done a good job at trying to train their soldiers about sexual harassment? If not, then do you have any suggestions of how the military can improve their sexual harassment education/programs? Let me know what you think.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Religious Discrimination in Private Schools

After discussing religious discrimination in higher education and private schools, I wanted to bring up a situation that occurred at my high school pertaining to this issue. One of the female teachers at my Catholic high school was rumored to have engaged in sexual activity with a former student, however she was not married. At the end of the year, my high school did not invite her back, and there was no public acknowledgement as to why she did not come back. This action appeared to be a double standard as there were several female students in my time in high school that were allowed to continue attending school even though they were pregnant. If the reason behind letting the teacher go was to maintain a good image with regards to Catholic beliefs, I did not see why students were allowed to continue going to school even though they broke those same beliefs. For me, I would think that students showing a disregard to Catholic beliefs would carry the same if not more weight in affecting other students perceptions than a teacher's actions. Although this issue goes beyond just an employer-employee relationship, I feel it still pertains to the issue we are currently discussing in class. Do you think the school was out of line in not inviting the teacher back? What do you think would have been a fair action by the school?

Religious Discrimination

I found a news article about a woman who won her religious discrimination case. Connie Rehm filed a lawsuit after being fired from her job for refusing to work Sundays. On the judge's order, Connie was able to get her position back in her town's public library, which is a position she held for 12 years "before her religious practice and the library's adoption of Sunday hours collided in 2003."

I thought it was an interesting story, and it relates to the topic we started on Wednesday and, more specifically, what we'll be talking about on Monday.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

How short is too short?

I recently watched a video on CNN called "Small World" about the constant discrimination shorter people feel they receive everyday from members of society. In this video, CNN showcases two people of short stature who live normal lives, but are constantly in fear of being publicly ridiculed or discriminated against because of their height. In America, the average height of a man is 5' 9" (69 inches) and for a woman its 5' 4" (64 inches). As for myself, I am right at the average height for a man, and I believe that everyone should be treated equal regardless of their height, however; after watching this video I was reminded about our discussion of IATs in class a couple weeks ago. Many people, like myself, believe that everyone should be treated equally, but since many of us are around people of average height most of our daily lives, when we do come across shorter than average individuals I wonder how much we may discriminate on a subconscious level? I know IATs are not without their faults, but it would be interesting to see how bias the general public is to people who are short compared to people who are taller. Do you think height should be a protected category under Title VII? Do you think the public is unaware of their biases toward shorter people? With all of the statistical data being collected about height and financial success, do you think short people have a valid claim that they are constantly fighting a glass ceiling in the workplace due to their small stature and supervisors' height biases? Let me know what you think.

Check it out at:
http://www.cnn.com/video/
Search for "Small World" in the video section

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

How much should we allow?

I discovered a story about insurance companies declining (discriminating against) customers based on the results of genetic testing. It made me think about the difference between discriminating based on genetic testing verses declining based on a previous condition. At first glance, it seems crazy to think that an insurance company could reject you because there is a "probability" that you "could" one day have a genetic disorder. It doesn't seem like a legal way of dealing with the issue. However, I know that they can decline clients who had an illness before, such as a form of cancer, but have made a full recovery. Is there really a difference? Its easy to say that because someone already had the condition before that it could return, but neither are really known. I understand that the company is sticking their neck out for you when they accept you as a client, but should they be able to turn you away based on either of these issues? Any thoughts?

Racial Discrimination among Firefighters

Here is an interesting article about how some Boston firefighters, who had close to perfect scores on their civil service tests, were not hired in favor of hiring more minorities. According to the article, in 1974 a judgment passed in Boston that required one minority firefighter to be hired for each white - in a 1:1 ratio. However, "since 2000, no white applicant who scored lower than 100 has been hired as a Boston firefighter, unless he or she was a veteran or the son or daughter of a firefighter killed or disabled at work, the Globe analysis found. ... Even some white candidates with scores of 100 were not offered jobs." The article is also interesting because it allows the reader to also see a few articles pertaining to the same issue.

They Cover Viagra

Those of you who picked up an IDS today might have come across this interesting discrimination story: They Cover Viagra

Jackie Fitzgerald, and several other Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPPC) employees, decided to file a lawsuit against UPPC for discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This lawsuit was brought on by the fact that UPPC's insurance policy does not cover birth control pills, and as a result of not being able to afford them on her own, Jackie ended up with an unplanned pregnancy.

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Thursday that the Union Pacific Railroad Company’s insurance policy did not discriminate against women in its refusal to cover the costs of birth control for its female employees. The court, in its 2-1 decision (which, of course, was handed down by a panel of all white, all male judges), justified its ruling by saying that “contraception is not ‘related to’ pregnancy ... because ... (it) is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy.”

The most interesting point in this story is that the insurance policy does cover male specific medicines such as Viagra. Is it just me or does this insurance policy seem this a little sexist? I think that if UPPC doesn't want to cover birth control pills, or other forms of female contraception, then they should not cover products that would premit a male to have a healthy sex life. Wouldn't this seem to be the cause of an unplanned pregnancy anyway? Pregnancy doesn't happen alone.

I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks about the Court's ruling that the insurance policy doesn't discriminate against women. Does anyone think that the Court made the correct ruling in this issue?

LSU women's basketball sex scandal

Just found this to be interesting with the topics we have been going over in class about relationships. It appears that LSU women’s basketball coach Pokey Chatman said that she won’t coach in the NCAA tournament,her resignation was prompted by the school’s discovery of inappropriate conduct between Chatman and one or more players. Just wanted to get your thoughts about her and whether she should be able to coach ever again?

Here is the story

http://www.dailycomet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/HC/20070308/BREAKING/70308005/-1/weather02

Religious Discrimination in Head Start Programs

I found this article and thought that it was interesting that a government/taxpayer funded organization, that is run by a religious organization, was allowed to discriminate against employees based on their religion! At least, that is my understanding; please tell me if I'm confused about the issue. Also, since this article was written in 2005, it would be interesting to hear what the outcome was...please let me know if you find anything. :)

Preventing Religious Discrimination

This website explains that not only can an employer not discriminate against a person becuase of their religious preference, but must also make accomodations so the person may be able to perform religious practices during the day if they wish. This also includes maybe relaxing the dress code so the employee may wear religious clothing.

Walgreens Sued for Discriminating on the Job

Last week the nation’s largest drugstore chain with sales of over $47 billion for the 2006 fiscal year was sued by the EEOC for assigning managers, management trainees, and pharmacists to low-performing stores in predominately African American communities because of their race. The EEOC filed the lawsuit citing a violation of Title VII. The complaints, which sparked the investigation by the EEOC, came from a group of current and former African American managers, who were routinely assigned to low-performing jobs in predominantly black neighborhoods. They alleged that these assignments were executed based on their race.

This case reminds me of the discussions that took place in class a few weeks ago about the requirements needed before the EEOC takes action against an employer. The plaintiffs, in this case the managers, must prove (1) they are part of a protected class, (2) qualified for the position, (3) they were victim of an adverse employment action, and (4) they were denied promotion opportunities. After reviewing this article, I see that the employees who filed the complaints have a valid case against Walgreens for their questionable assignments of black employees.

Walgreens representatives deny that it discriminated against any of it employees. I was wondering what you guys think Walgreens could use as a defense against the claims brought against them by the EEOC? They can not use a BFOQ defense at all because it can not be applied to race or color. Do you think Walgreens has any valid defenses for their controversial employee assignments?

Monday, March 19, 2007

Disney's Attempt to Create a New Kind of Role Model

I found an article pertaining to the short clip we watched prior to break in class. (about the young black children who chose a white doll over a black doll). Apparently, Disney is in the process of creating their "First Animated Black Princess Fairytale".

I actually think someone mentioned animated children's movies in class (and their bias towards white characters). Perhaps this will have a positive, mind altering, effect on young African American girls (and others for that matter) when it is released.

The plot sounds unique; it takes place in New Orleans.

Here is the link for anyone who is interested: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258008,00.html

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Sexual Harassment Claims by Men on the Rise

Friday, March 09, 2007

Recent Interview

I interviewed yesterday for an internship with a company in Ft. Wayne, and I thought about our class as the interviewer started talking about how his son is currently going to the same high school that I went to. He also said he thought he recognized me from caddying at his golf club. While these discussions were good ice-breakers for the interview, I could not help to think that I was getting an edge over the other interviewees by talking about these things. I hope that these discussions do help me out in continuing in the interview process, but I wonder if any of you think that he crossed the line in asking these questions. In judging how the interview went after this discussion, I would definitely say that this initial conversation helped me out greatly and would be surprised if I did not get a second interview. It could be that my other credentials were more important, but I think that by relating to the interviewer it will certainly help. Let me know what you think...

Possible Errors With IAT

After talking about IAT's in class and personally taking a test, I was somewhat skeptical as to how efficient these tests actually are in showing people's biases. My results showed little variation in my preferences, and I just wondered whether or not there were possible errors with how these tests are administered. I came across ten common ways that the IAT is used improperly, found by Anthony Greenwald at the University of Washington:

1. Use of non-categories (unrelated words, nonsense words) as
presumably neutral categories in the IAT
2. Confounding category contrasts with positive-negative valence
3. Using stimulus items that permit alternate interpretations of
category contrasts
4. Treating subsets of IAT trials as measures of distinct
associations
5. Use of millisecond-unit IAT-effect measures (known to contain a
cognitive skill artifact)
6. Having subjects practice the attribute contrast before the
target concept contrast
7. Randomizing the series target and attribute items rather than
alternating them
8. Not counterbalancing order of administration of multiple IATs
when comparing magnitudes of these IAT effects
9. Making target-concept items indistinguishable in font from
attribute-concept items
10. Discarding error trials prior to data analysis

Do you think these are accurate errors with the IAT, or do you think that it is an efficient measure to determine how people discriminate others? I think a couple of these errors could be viably supported in most of the IAT's; however, I feel that the IAT's on race and gender are fairly effective tests.

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Implicit Association Test Results

After taking my Implicit Association Test, I decided to do a little more research about “Project Implicit” itself. The website defines Project Implicit as blending “basic research and educational outreach in a virtual laboratory at which visitors can examine their own hidden biases.” It was established to better understand attitudes, stereotypes and biases. Since 1998, over 4.6 million demonstration tests have been completed, and findings have been observed.

The first observation is that the implicit biases are pervasive. This means that a majority of Americans feel the same biases. For example, 80%+ respondents are biased negatively against the elderly, compared to youth. Also, 75-80% of respondents who described themselves as White/Asian show an implicit preference to racial white, rather than black. Another interesting observation Project Implicit has noticed is that people generally tend to be unaware of their own biases. This can be found by comparing the initial surveys taken to the actual test results. Finally, Project Implicit has observed that people’s implicit attitudes are varied by their individual experiences. This is visible by the variance in bias level.

When you took the IAT test, were you surprised with the results? I took the same test twice, and received very different results. Did anyone else try the same test more than once and get different/same results? Do you think that discrimination training, as advocated by Professor David Warner in Nick’s posting “Discrimination Training” below would have an effect on your future IAT scores?

http://www.projectimplicit.net/generalinfo.php

Discrimination Training

In comparison with the readings assigned for today on employment discrimination being based on unconscious individual cognition, I came across some intriguing information at the Education Resources Information Center website (http://www.eric.ed.gov/).

The e-reserves reading described several examples acknowleding situations where people made decisions about customers or other people unconsciously based on race, gender, or physical attributes. The ERIC website discussed how Professor David Warner is doing research to combat this negative form of discrimination with future teachers. He is doing a study that does cognitive discrimination training to develop classroom knowledge. The research suggests that teacher behavior is a by-product of information processing strategies, which enable teachers to read the classroom environment. He suggests that preservice teachers can learn through cognitive discrimination training to approach the classroom as an experienced teacher would.

Do you think this is a viable solution that universities could implement not only in the school of education, but also in other areas of education?

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Cultural Influence on Cognitive Bias

After reading the article by Linda Krieger on Cognitive Bias on Employment Discrimination, I wondered what theories, if any, there were concerning how the media shapes decisions of employers. I came across this short excerpt:

Charles R. Lawrence, III, The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism, 39 Stan L. Rev. 317, 323 (1987) (“T]he theory of cognitive psychology states that the culture—including, for example, the media and an individual's parents, peers, and authority figures—transmits certain beliefs and preferences. Because these beliefs are so much a part of the culture, they are not experienced as explicit lessons. Instead, they seem part of the individual's rational ordering of her perceptions of the world. The individual is unaware, for example, that the ubiquitous presence of a cultural stereotype has influenced her perception that blacks are lazy or unintelligent. Because racism is so deeply ingrained in our culture, it is likely to be transmitted by tacit understandings: Even if a child is not told that blacks are inferior, he learns that lesson by observing the behavior of others. These tacit understandings, because they have never been articulated, are less likely to be experienced at a conscious level.”).

I have always thought that the media is a catalyst in instilling several strong beliefs or stereotypes about certain minority groups that adults and children carry with them throughout their lives. People see minority groups as inferior, aggressive, passive, or any other characteristic everyday on television or other media sources. In support of Linda Krieger's article, people then categorize this individuals and form opinions in relation to them or in opposition to them.

I guess my question is whether anything can be done to combat these stereotypes that are being instilled in everyone starting at a very young age. There are attempts for political correctness, but many times it is ineffective with how obvious it is being portrayed. What are your thoughts?

Put Your Best Face Forward - Literally

Have you ever rolled out of bed in the morning and headed off to work without showering, styling your hair or choosing a great outfit? Perhaps you might want to think twice! According to the article “Looks Matter in the Workplace” by Laura Morscsh on cnn.com, “good looks can have a real impact on workers’ bank accounts”. In fact, good-looking people can earn on average 5% more in hourly wages than their average-looking coworkers. In turn, average-looking coworkers can earn up to 9% more in hourly wages than the plainest-looking coworkers. In addition to these surprising statistics, according to the Journal of Labor Economics, plain-looking employees receive fewer promotions to their attractive counterparts. Seem fair? Seem legal?

This phenomenon may also be found in a university setting. The article also states that college students give higher evaluation scores to better-looking professors. Do you feel this is true? Has the appearance of a professor ever effected the way you have evaluated his or her teaching ability?

Since discrimination based on looks is not illegal, except in a few jurisdictions, promotion based on physical appearance is allowed. Does this seem like an acceptable practice to you? Will this change the way you prepare for potential interviews or your daily work routine? Job applicants in Europe are actually required to submit photos with their resume. My two friends from Germany informed me that everyone has professional photographs taken, like senior pictures, so that they are able to put their best face forward to employers. I am just curious on your thoughts about this issue. Does this disgust you? Does it make sense? Put yourself in the employer’s shoes: Is this something you might unknowingly do?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/02/28/cb.pretty/index.html

Monday, March 05, 2007

Gender Discrimination

I wanted to get some of your opinions on a situation that is occurring over the next year at my scholarship house (Evans Scholars) involving women moving in next fall. In the past, men have only lived in the house and women scholars either lived in the dorms or apartments. However, a new initiative was started this year to have women scholars live in our house in the future. At first, the proposal involved only junior and senior women to live in, but it has since been revised to include all women scholars to live in. As a result, our house plans on having around 10 women live in the house next year.

The idea of discrimination comes into play with how their living arrangements are set up. The priority of rooms has always been determined by the Executive Board members (President, Vice Presidents, etc.), then class status, and finally grade point average. Most seniors and juniors and all Executive Board members have there own rooms. Everyone else either has one or two roommates. This is the system that is carried out in all 14 Evans Scholar chapters. However, some of the women have been coming up with an objection to the plan because of what would result with this system. The possible scenario that is being objected to is that if we have three new freshmen women, that they would have to live in a triple room together (because a freshmen women would not have priority over another to have their own room). So, this would rule out having one with their own room and the other two rooming together. This option is being objected to because many of the current women scholars do not believe it is feasible to have three women in one room. Is this really fair? Men scholars have lived in triples nearly every year, and women have done so in other Evans Scholar chapters. The same problem could occur if we have five new women scholars, too. So, I am asking you, "Is this really fair to the male scholars of the house that women scholars could possibly get their own rooms before people with higher priority."

Hopefully, you understand the situation to make a comment on it. We still do not know all the changes that are going to have to be made. However, I feel as though this system is discriminating against the men scholars that have worked hard to work their way up the ranks and deserve a higher room pick. Let me know what you think...

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Sexual Harassment: Have we evolved from the 80's?

In “Tales from the Boom-Boom Room: Women vs. Wall Street”, Susan Antilla explores the outbreak of sexual harassment lawsuits in the financial industry in the 1980s. Female employees from respected companies such as Salomon Smith Barney and Merrill Lynch brought the sexual hazing to light. They described both quid pro quo and abusive working environment sexual harassment, as well as the glass ceiling and retaliatory effects experienced nationwide. Perhaps the reason the harassment reached the level it did is because of the Form U-4 Uniform Application for the Securities Industry Registration or Transfer. This form from the SEC required employees industry-wide to submit to arbitration for any claims, disputes or controversies arising between the employee and firm. Since men made up a substantial percentage of the arbitrators, few women succeeded when filing complaints. Ironically, for a period of time, the financial industry was actually admired for its lack of employment related complaints in comparison to other industries in which employees had access to a jury trial. In 1998, the SEC discontinued its policy of mandating arbitration for the financial industry. However, several firms still write this into their contract and will not hire employees unwilling to agree to it. Merrill Lynch is one of the few financial firms that guarantees employees access to a jury trial.

I read “Tales from the Boom-Boom Room” for my book review and found it not only extremely relevant to the career path many of us are about to embark upon, but also closely related to our current class discussion. I am curious how many people who have already accepted positions with financial companies have inspected their contract closely. Have you checked to see if you are required to use arbitration if a dispute should arise? Would you feel comfortable approaching your HR manager to ask such a question if it was not indicated on your contract? It is also important to research the history the firm in question has with sexual harassment lawsuits. Many of these suits were only settled in the 90s, which is not that long ago. Finally, one other area of concern should also be work/life balance. It is important to consider whether or not employers are receptive to this concept, or if they have a history of retaliatory actions when employees take maternity/paternity leaves. How do you feel about the companies that are on campus at IU? For the students who will be attending law school, what do you expect of the firms you will apply to? Is this as much of an issue?

Antilla, Susan. Tales from the Boom-Boom Room: Women vs. Wall Street. Princeton, NJ: 2002.

Sexual Harassment Kept Quiet

Several months ago, a sports broadcaster was immediately released by ESPN due to unknown reasons although it was long suspected that it was due to a sexual harassment claim. ESPN is the major sporting news channel in the country with monopolistic-like power on reporting all things sports. The broadcaster was let go just a few days after reporting on his daily show, Baseball Tonight, and was not heard of again. Although ESPN does a fine job on reporting major sporting scores and providing highlights for most major sporting events, they also report and discuss many news stories that have to do with anything sports. However, ESPN did not report why they had quickly fired the broadcaster and many were left wondering why they weren't seeing a usual face on such a widely-viewed television show. It was not until several weeks later that the broadcaster reported to the New York Post that he was indeed fired for alleged sexual harassment. Does ESPN have a greater responsibility to report that this major television character was dismissed for sexual harassment reasons? Were they right in not reporting anything at all to the public? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14026863

Punitive Damages - Show me the money!

In a San Francisco Superior Court case involving sexual discrimination, Rena Weeks was awarded $7.1 million in punitive damages after accusing her former employer of sexual discrimination. Rena alleged that Baker and McKenzie Law Firm partner, Martin Greenstein, groped and sexually discriminated against her. Rena had only worked for the firm for 25 days before asking to be transfered, and later resigning. While the partner was at fault for his personal actions, should the employer be forced to pay this great sum of money because of the partner's mistakes. Of the $7.1 million awarded Weeks, the employer paid $6.9 million and Greenstein paid only $225,000. Is this really fair to the employer? Should Rena Weeks have made it more clear to other partners that there was a serious problem? Let me know what you think.

For the full article check out the url: <http://www.gtla.org/public/cases/baker.html>

Title IX

Title IX is a federal law which, "prohibits sex discrimination against students and employees of educational institutions. Title IX benefits both males and females, and is at the heart of efforts to create gender equitable schools. The law requires educational institutions to maintain policies, practices and programs that do not discriminate against anyone based on sex. Under this law, males and females are expected to receive fair and equal treatment in all arenas of public schooling" (http://www.american.edu/sadker/titleix.htm) and also imposes a duty upon colleges and universities to, "take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate and otherwise determine what occurred when they receive an allegation of sexual harassment. If harassment is found, institutions should take action reasonably calculated to end it and prevent it from occurring again." (http://bert.lib.indiana.edu:2091/universe/document?_m=bd45a72d4ad1ead3d232ccd17c316ea5&_docnum=2&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkVb&_md5=16847dfd350af090d8bc76ecca811395)

Georgia State University has been found non-compliant with a female student's charge of sexual harassment against her female professor. According to the student, she stayed after class to ask her teacher about an assignment and as the teacher adjusted her pants to adjust a back support, her pants fell down and she exposed herself to the student (seems accidental). The University was found non-compliant with their investigation into the student's claim.

First of all, do you believe that the student was acting as a "reasonable person" in charging her professor with sexual harassment? Do you believe that the "non-traditional" nature of the case (female against female) may have contributed to the University's failure to properly investigate the student's claims?

Friday, March 02, 2007

I just took a look at the IU code of student rights and found one sentence of the part discussing "amorous or sexual relationships between faculty members and students" interesting. In class Wednesday, we discussed whether or not there is a bias to side with the accuser or the accused. In the IU code (Part I, Section B, 5C) it states:

"Voluntary consent by the student in such a relationship is suspect, given the fundamentally asymmetric nature of the relationship."

This statement makes it seem as though the University would sympathize more with the accuser, based on the degree of control and authority professors have over students.
Do you feel that this is fair? Should Universities judge charges of sexual harassment against professors based on this assumption?

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Sexual Harassment

Being that some of us would like to one day own our own business, I was curious about what informal information was available for employers. I found these websites that were rather interesting. I have to admit that I chuckled at first when I saw that someone could order a "Harassment Prevention Kit," but I guess when the odds could go either way...its better to be prepared. I also found a site advising employers about what they should do to prevent harasment in their workplace. See what you think.