Victims of Sexual Misconduct on the Job Testify Against Forced Arbitration

From today’s New York Times:

Former employees of the technology company Afiniti, the broadcaster CBS and the luxury giant LVMH shared accounts of sexual abuse, rape and harassment with a congressional committee on Tuesday, experiences they said they had been required to keep quiet because they had signed contracts with “forced arbitration” clauses.

The testimony, which implicated executives at the companies, came as the House Judiciary Committee was considering legislation that would abolish forced arbitration for victims of sexual assault and harassment. Forced arbitration often requires an employee to go through a private proceeding with his or her employer after bringing an accusation of workplace misconduct, according to legislators.

Although arbitration clauses do not prevent employees from going to the police in the event of a serious crime, companies often make signing them a condition of keeping or getting a job. Paired with confidentiality clauses, they can have a chilling effect on reporting misconduct.

The witnesses were all women who worked in different fields and described a range of experiences of misconduct, from verbal harassment to outright assault. They testified for hours, under protection of congressional subpoenas.

Tatiana Spottiswoode said that in April 2016, she had begun working for Afiniti, a medical-device technology company founded by Zia Chishti, whom she described as a multimillionaire and a family friend who had known her since she was about 12 years old.

Ms. Spottiswoode, who was about 23 at the time, said she had signed a contract that included “an arbitration agreement with a strong confidentiality clause.”

Read the complete story here.

California should pass AB1119 to protect the work rights of family caregivers

From today’s Los Angeles Times:

As travel ground to a halt in April 2020, the janitorial staff at a hotel chain were furloughed. When business resumed, everyone was called back — everyone, that is, except the mothers.

In a pandemic layoff at another company, only two people lost their jobs — one was a new mother, the other was on maternity leave.

When a woman complained about insufficient COVID-19 protection at a warehouse distribution center, her bosses retaliated by rescheduling her, making it nearly impossible for her to supervise her children’s remote schooling and do her job at the same time.

We see discrimination against parents at the UC Hastings Law School Center for WorkLife Law during normal times, but calls to our hotline increased sevenfold as COVID-19 took hold.

It’s no news that workers are vulnerable because of the weakness of American employment laws, but it may be news that their family responsibilities may put them at greater risk.

Employers prefer “ideal” workers, the kind whose home lives don’t impose on workdays or require even occasional flexibility. The pandemic upended the notion that cookie-cutter rigidity is a work prerequisite, but it also gave some bosses cover to stick with the old mindset, as the workers who’ve been calling us discovered.

California is considering legislation that would push such employers into new thinking.

Assembly Bill 1119, now under committee consideration, would amend the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act in two ways: It would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people seeking, obtaining and holding work based on family caregiving responsibilities. And it would require employers to give regular caregivers — those with “direct and ongoing” responsibilities for children and other family members — simple accommodations, such as the right to arrive a few minutes late when school or childcare becomes unexpectedly unavailable, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.

Read the complete article here.

Fintechs Need Strong Consumer Protections, Diversity, Inclusion Asserts Key Congressman

From tdoay’s Forbes Magazine:

Fintechs need to include strong consumer protections, diversity, and inclusion, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), chair of the House Financial Services Committee’s panel on consumer protection and financial institutions said at a hearing on banking innovation today.

“Most banks and credit unions have been a source of strength in the pandemic in part because of the stringent capital, liquidity, and other regulatory requirements we place on these financial institutions,” he asserted.

The financial stability risks, consumer protection issues, market fairness questions, and potential benefits of unconventional banking charters needs to be explored, Perlmutter said.

Financial Services Committee Chairman Maxine Waters (D-CA) said she was alarmed the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) overstepped its authority by creating a fintech charter and expressed concern it could lead to a regulatory race to the bottom.

The New York State Department of Financial Services has sued the agency, claiming it lacks the legal authority to issue that type of charter. In a memo prepared for the hearing, the Committee’s Democratic staff noted in recent years, OCC, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) have taken steps to allow firms to engage in banking activities while being subject to less regulations and supervision compared to most other banks and credit unions.

At the same time Wyoming, which was mentioned frequently at the hearing, and other states have ventured into unconventional bank charters aimed at allowing cryptocurrency and blockchain to provide bank-like services.

Financial Services Committee lead Republican, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, said regulators should be advancing advances in banking innovation and not hindering them.

Brian Brooks, who headed up the agency as Acting Comptroller of the Currency during the Trump administration praised the potential of fintechs to expand credit and economic opportunity with additionally providing better alternatives to payday lenders.

Read the complete article here.

“An NDA Was Designed to Keep Me Quiet” – How Pinterest Undermines Equity in the Workplace

From today’s New York Times:

Last March, I sat in a lawyer’s conference room and watched as my corporate account at Pinterest was suddenly shut off. For almost two years, I had worked at the company as a public policy manager engaging with elected officials, civil rights groups and public health organizations. In an instant, I lost access to emails, documents and all internal systems. Months earlier, I filed complaints about wage discrimination and retaliation. Now the company was presenting me with no choice but to leave.

I thought about how I would explain to my colleagues, friends, family and prospective employers why I no longer had the high-profile job I loved. Worse, I had to find a way to have those conversations without violating the terms of a highly restrictive nondisclosure agreement (NDA), drawn up by Pinterest’s legal team, which was designed to keep me quiet.

Companies have long used NDAs to prevent competitors from poaching confidential information and good ideas. But they appear to increasingly be used to prevent workers from speaking out about instances of harassment, discrimination or assault they may face on the job.

During the #MeToo movement, those who came forward to report workplace abuses did so at great personal and legal risk. But it shouldn’t be this way. That is why I’mhelping lead the passage of a bill in California that, if signed into law, will allow victims of any kind of workplace discrimination to speak openly about the abuse they experience, regardless of the language in an NDA.

For a long time, I hesitated to speak about the issues I experienced at Pinterest. I didn’t want to be sued, and I hoped that the company would do the right thing and address the pay inequities and retaliation I faced. But it didn’t. When I eventually made the decision to come forward publicly, I, along with a courageous former colleague named Aerica Shimizu Banks, did so with the knowledge that we’d be covered, to some extent, under a 2019 law in California called CCP 1001.

Passed in the wake of the #MeToo movement, the law provides protections for those breaking NDAs if they disclose factual allegations related to only three types of misconduct: sexual harassment, sexual assault and gender discrimination. But those protections did not include the race discrimination that I also faced as a Black woman. As such, only one part of my identity was protected, leaving me in a sort of legal limbo.

Recognizing the need for intersectional protection in this law, I decided to work withCalifornia State Senator Connie Leyva (the author of CCP 1001) to help draft and sponsor the Silenced No More Act along with the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates. If passed, the measure will allow victims of any type of covered workplace discrimination — on the basis of such categories as race, religion, age, disability and sexual orientation — to speak honestly and openly about what they have faced, regardless of the language in a nondisclosure or nondisparagement agreement.

Read the complete article here.

Women’s Gains in the Work Force Conceal a Problem

From today’s New York Times:

American women have just achieved a significant milestone: They hold more payroll jobs than men. But this isn’t entirely good news for workers, whether they’re men or women.

The difference is small, but it reflects the fact that women have been doing better in the labor market compared with men. One big reason is that the occupations that are shrinking tend to be male-dominated, like manufacturing, while those that are growing remain female-dominated, like health care and education. That puts men at a disadvantage in today’s economy — but it also ensures that the female-dominated jobs remain devalued and underpaid.

“Female-dominated jobs in the working class are just not comparable to men’s jobs,” said Janette Dill,a sociologist at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. “So yes, it’s great to see women participating at such a high level in the labor market, but it also really means continuing challenges for working-class families, because these jobs just don’t replace manufacturing jobs in terms of job quality and wages.”

Women now hold 50.04 percent of payroll jobs (which excludes people who work on farms or in households or are self-employed), according to the Labor Department’s jobs report this month. (Men are still a larger share of the labor force than women, a number that is calculated differently — it includes people who don’t have jobs but are looking for work; farm and household workers; and self-employed people.)

Reasons for the decline in work for less educated men are many. They include the rise of automation; the waning power of unions; rising incarceration rates; the factories that move overseas; and hurdles to switching jobs like having to move away or return to school. But gender norms are a major and often overlooked factor. However much politicians talk about manufacturing jobs, the United States economy has become service-dominated — and jobs helping people have typically been done by women, while jobs making things have been associated with men.

Read the complete article here.

U.S. Women Won, Men Lost, and Equal Pay Fight Tied Them Together Again

From today’s New York Times:

For American soccer fans, the juxtaposition was hard to ignore: the United States women’s team winning a record fourth World Cup championship in France, its men’s counterpart falling to its bitter rival Mexico hours later in a regional championship in Chicago.

The two results Sunday were not a mere collision of games: they also highlighted a contentious battle about pay equality featuring the men’s teams and women’s teams, the different media and financial ecosystems in which they compete, and the often unequal rewards for success for male and female athletes. All of it was brought to the fore again by the women’s team’s latest world championship, and by the chants of “Equal Pay!” that serenaded the players after they won.

In recent years, that fight for pay equality has been the women’s team’s calling card. The players contend they are paid less by the United States Soccer Federation than the men — sometimes tens of thousands of dollars or more for top players in a given year — and that the situation has persisted for years even as the women’s team has collected more trophies and begun to produce more revenue than the men. U.S. Soccer has welcomed the team’s success — Sunday’s title was the team’s second in a row — even as it has challenged the players’ math, arguing that the situation is complicated by a compensation structure negotiated by each team that pays the men and women differently.

But the women’s players, who include some of the most prominent female athletes in the world, have pressed their argument in interviews and on social media and, most recently, in a gender discrimination federal court. On Sunday, bathing in the crowd’s adoration and set to cash in on bonuses of more than $250,000 each, one of their captains turned the screws again.

Read the complete article here.

Why Gay Rights Is a Republican Value

From today’s New York Times:

Conservatives support freedom, which is why they should oppose job discrimination against LGBTQ Americans.

This week, more than 2,000 signatories — members of Congress, women’s rights groups, businesses — submitted nearly 50 friend-of-the-court briefs to the Supreme Court in three pending cases involving L.G.B.T.Q. rights.

The cases, which the court is likely to take up next session, consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, prohibits discrimination against L.G.B.T.Q. people. The signers reflect what a broad cross section of Americans overwhelmingly believe: Such discrimination is wrong.

Polls consistently show a high percentage of Americans think that firing people or denying them jobs or promotions because they are L.G.B.T.Q. is wrong and that it should be prohibited under our nation’s civil rights laws. A full 92 percent said so in an April poll by Quinnipiac University. That’s in part because basic protections against job discrimination are fundamental to core American values of fairness.

This isn’t a new idea, or a partisan one. Abraham Lincoln wished for all workers to have an equal chance to acquire property and to gain wealth. “When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life,” he said, “free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.”

Read the complete article here.

Opinion: Should women’s soccer players be paid as much as men?

From today’s Washington Post:

The tipping point may have been the sixth goal. Or the seventh. Or the 13th, which turned out to be the last goal scored in the U.S. women’s national team’s handy defeat of Thailand in their first World Cup game.

Whichever goal it was that fans thought should have been the last for ecstatic celebration by the likes of Megan Rapinoe and Alex Morgan on Tuesday, the debate over the players’ sliding, kicking and group hugging drew attention to another issue: the 38 cents on the dollar that the women are paid compared to the men’s team.

On International Women’s Day in March, all 28 members of the women’s team filed a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Soccer Federation, alleging they do the same job as the men’s team in exchange for lower wages and inferior working conditions. The men’s national team has never won a world title and did not qualify for last year’s World Cup.

The women have been fighting for fair pay for years. Five of them filed a wage-discrimination complaint in 2016 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that enforces civil-rights laws in the workplace. Some of them then made the rounds on major television networks to plead their case.

Read the complete article here.

Six countries give women the same work rights as men, US not one of them

From today’s Washington Post:

A decade ago, no country in the world treated men and women equally under the law, according to a gender equality index from the World Bank. Today, only six countries do — and the United States isn’t one of them.

A new index released this week by the World Bank analyzes how each country’s laws affect women at every stage in their working lives — from applying for a job to having a child to receiving a pension — and the extent to which legal gender equality has progressed over time.

The study shows that over the past 10 years, the majority of the world moved closer to gender equality under the law, raising the global average score from 70.06 to 74.71 today.

By the index’s measures, six countries now have laws that protect men and women equally: Belgium, Denmark, France, Latvia, Luxembourg and Sweden.

The United States, meanwhile, is far from the leading pack. Its 2018 score came in at 83.75, a score that has stayed flat for the past 10 years. The U.S. tied with Malawi, Kenya and The Bahamas. More than 60 other countries had better scores.

The study, titled “Women, Business and the Law 2019: A Decade of Reform,” calculated each country’s score using 35 different indicators, focusing on laws that affect women’s ability to live and work freely. Each of the data points were divided into eight categories: Going places, starting a job, getting paid, getting married, having children, running a business, managing assets and getting a pension.

Read the complete article here.