Do We Need Sex Discrimination Acts?

In 1963, a first and vital step toward establishing employment discrimination laws took effect in the form of the EPA. The EPA is the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that sought to rectify the gaping wage differences between working adult women and men. Today, there has been some improvement, but women still see only 77 cents to every dollar that the average American male earns.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 added to the arsenal of employment discrimination laws as an effort to prevent hiring on the basis on race, gender, religious affiliation, or national heritage. These fall under "protected categories" and if violated, the employer can face severe monetary penalties and class-action lawsuits.

The American with Disabilities act was an added entree to the employment discrimination laws platter, providing protection for those with disabilities from receiving harassment or discrimination.

Employment discrimination laws are meant to prevent disparate treatment among employees and prospective hires. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 intended to further fortify the original Title VII amendment by eliminating the claim of "business necessity" in intentional discrimination acts, clarified disparate acts, and provided for damages to those who suffered employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national heritage, and disabilities.

Proponents of Affirmative Action advocate that this practice enables a more diverse and equitable workforce. In some countries, however, affirmative action is illegal as it serves to highlight racial backgrounds and thus promote more racism. Opponents in this country argue that affirmative action only adds to invidious hiring practices, impose limits on the freedom of choice, and sets up racial groups against one another. Richard Epstein elucidates this contention in his book Forbidden Grounds.

Family and medical leave is also protected under employment discrimination laws, and one case shows that an employer's irreverence toward this law costs some big bucks. When a former broker for Merrill Lynch filed suit against the agency for wrongful termination, Merrill Lynch set out to make a settlement agreement. The broker was terminated while on leave, and could very well have garnered a six to seven figure reward for this kind of employment discrimination.

But the inequality is equally expressed when it comes time for paternal leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 mandates that employers provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave for employees who must take care of children or sick family members, but often this extension applies more readily to female workers than men. Another case of discrimination arises in these cases when it appears evident that social expectations cater to women leaving work to care for children, but scoffs at male workers who petition for paternal leave.

Heavy fines ensue for employers who disobey employment discrimination laws, but the fact alone remains that as long as these acts are necessary, our society has a long way to go to eradicate discrimination. In some cases, it may actually promote it. Only time will tell how well we achieve equilibrium and equality in employment trends.