Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: The Belmont Abbey Case

In a recent article published in the Wall Street Journal, Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, NC, was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for discriminating against women in terms of their college health insurance plan. Back in 2007, eight faculty members from Belmont Abbey College issued a complaint that the insurance policy discriminated against women because it would not allow the coverage of prescription contraceptives. Because Belmont Abbey held to its Catholic beliefs and teachings, this plan was seen as acceptable by William Thierfelder, the college president; however, the EEOC felt differently.

For the EEOC, it was clear that contraceptive coverage was enforced by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which in summary requires that employers not discriminate in providing pensions, sick leave and health benefits to employees. Because of this, employers cannot discriminate based on a child bearing woman and must provide either sick leave or leave of absence for childbirth just like any other form of medical leave. North Carolina also mandated that contraceptives be insured like any other prescription drug. This is where the situation gets somewhat sticky. While North Carolina has mandated that contraceptives be insured like other prescription drugs, it exempts religious employers from this rule. The EEOC, however, does not stand with the same position as the North Carolina law, and thus this sticky situation turned into an interesting gender discrimination case.

Throughout the bounds of time, women have struggled to find power and presence in vastly masculine societies. According to one website, "Throughout most of history women generally have had fewer legal rights and career opportunities than men. Wifehood and motherhood were regarded as women's most significant professions" (Compton, 1). Because of this general Christian understanding that women were to be regarded as helpmates, women were seen as inferior in both physical and legal circumstances to men. This played out in society by the fact that the women worked at home, were not allowed to participate in legal affairs and were generally subdued by male authority in the culture.

"During the early history of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his material possessions" (Compton, 1). The rules from the society in England and other European countries carried over with immigration to the United States. As a rule, men were seen to "own" his wife and kids in the most literal sense of the term: he had authority over his family, he determined his wife's responsibilities and her role in the household, etc. It was not until the early 19^th century that women began to assert authority and autonomy along with men.

Equity law had a drastic effect on the rights of women. Equity law "emphasized the principle of equal rights rather than tradition" (Compton, 1). This effect led to certain laws that allowed women to sue men, divorce their husbands and own their own property. Women also began working outside of the home in the 19^th century in places such as textile mills (Compton, 1). Women began to experience more freedom as the ideals of egalitarianism began to rise in place of the Christian view of complementarianism.

During the 1960's, women experienced the greatest deal of socio-economic liberation with the passing of laws such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which "aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex" (Wikipedia (Equal Pay), 1) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited gender discrimination under Title VII. Also, the Presidential Executive Order 11375 prohibited gender discrimination in compliance with federal contracts of $10,000 or more (Compton, 1). By passing these laws, the government relinquished much of its male headship to allow women equal rights and opportunity. Because of the "politically correct" mentality of many Americans today, passing acts such as these seem fair, balanced and just towards both men and women.

However, women still suffer disparity in today's workplace, even though the law considers women equal men. In a recent study performed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, wage disparity was illuminated in the fact that "women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn. It gets worse as women work longer hours - women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn" (Grohol, 1).

Another interesting note to make about gender discrimination in the workplace is the phenomena of what has been coined "gender fatigue". In a study done by Elisabeth Kelan, Ph. D. from King's College in London, Dr. Kelan found that employees generally acknowledge gender discrimination can be an issue in the workplace, but they believe that the company they are currently working for is gender neutral (Grohol, 1). As Dr. Kelan asserted, "Instead of denying gender discrimination, workers acknowledge it can happen but construct it as singular events that happened in the past, placing the onus on women to overcome such obstacles" (Grohol, 1). Hence we come to the idea of gender fatigue, which simply stated is the phenomena that "individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again" (Grohol, 1). It would seem that though employees will acknowledge the fact that their company at one time discriminated against gender, they get sick of having to deal with it and would rather just perceive their company as gender neutral than fight their company for better workplace standards.

Women also suffer the "glass ceiling" effect in today's workplace. The glass ceiling is referred to as "situations where the advancement of a qualified person within the hierarchy of an organization is stopped at a lower level because of some form of discrimination, most commonly sexism or racism" (Wikipedia (Glass Ceiling), 1). Even though acts have been passed to "stop" this kind of mentality, the reality is that the mentality still exists in our generation today. In a study done in 2006, 62% of the companies studied employed male CEO's; however, women holding 38% of the CEO position was up from 33% in 2004 (ASAE, 1). While gender discrimination is still evident in the workplace today, conditions are improving for women as a whole. Managers must understand the implications of the history and reality of gender discrimination to avoid unnecessary and costly adverse treatment and adverse impact claims.

The whole issue pertaining to this article comes back to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The main reason behind the passing of this act was to "reverse the Supreme Court's decision in General Electric Company v. Gilbert (1976)" (Colker, 1). This made it where the Supreme Court showed that Title VII's exclusion in the opposition to sex discrimination "does not include a ban on pregnancy-based discrimination." Although Title VII commonly prohibits sex discrimination in the work environment, Congress amended Title VII to extended prohibition to also incorporate "pregnancy-based discrimination" (Colker, 1).

The Pregnancy Discrimination act of 1978 "prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions" (McKay,1). This act only comes into play when the company has 15 or more employees. The EEOC requires the employers to "treat pregnant women the same way they do other employees or job applicants" (McKay,1). A couple key facts stated in this act include: "An employer cannot refuse to hire someone because she is pregnant or has a pregnancy-related condition," and "An employer may not keep a pregnant woman from working or prohibit a woman from returning to work after giving birth" (McKay, 1). Because of companies failing to abide by this law, several complaints and lawsuits have been formed. During the year of 2006, the EEOC received 4,901 charges of pregnancy-based discrimination (McKay, 1). Due to this fact, it is clear to see that many companies are simply paying no attention to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. A woman "must be allowed to perform her job as long as she is able," and if she is unable to do her job as a result of her pregnancy then the company must treat her in the same manner that a "temporarily disabled employee would be treated" (The Rights of Women, 1). Also, health insurance coverage that may be provided by the company is also affected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The company's health insurance must cover pregnancy and childbirth in the same way that they would cover any other type of medical condition. When dealing with pregnancy, the woman's marital status is irrelevant when in search of health care, so this simply means that "a single mother should be treated in the same way as a pregnant married woman" (The Rights of Women, 1).

Not only does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require the company to cover a woman's pregnancy, it also requires the company to cover a "woman's potential for pregnancy" (The U.S. EEOC, 1). This has to do with the coverage of contraception prescriptions. Contraception is simply "means by which a woman controls her ability to become pregnant." Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act employers may not dismiss a woman employee from her job simply because she is using contraceptives. Therefore employers cannot discriminate "in their health insurance plan by denying benefits for prescription contraceptives when they provide benefits for comparable drugs and devices" (The U.S. EEOC, 1). Congress outlawed discrimination against women that was related to all matters dealing with "the childbearing process" and also presented women with their right to be "financially and legally protected before, during, and after their pregnancies." Only by enlarging the protection could Congress guarantee that women would not have any disadvantage in the workplace because of "their pregnancies or because of their ability to bear children" (The U.S. EEOC, 1).

In today's workforce there are some companies that have been violating the law under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. They have failed to offer insurance coverage for "the cost of prescription contraceptive drugs and devices" (The U.S. EEOC, 1). Women who may sue and collect under the PDA Act are then reimbursed of their "costs of prescription contraceptives for the applicable back pay period" (The U.S. EEOC, 1).This case is an interesting read because I believe arguments can be made for both sides of the case. At first glance, one could pass over this case without understanding the implications of the rulings. However, if a more in depth approach is taken in light of the ruling of the case, managers should be keen to how the EEOC now operates in regards to gender discrimination.

This prima facie case of adverse impact was originally dismissed by the EEOC in the event of finding nothing wrong with the college healthcare plan. However, after the case was reopened, the EEOC found the college violating federal law according to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and therefore sought court remedies (Reilly, 1). Both the EEOC and North Carolina law mandated that employers were required to cover contraceptive expenses if it covered other prescription drugs in its plan. However, the North Carolina law exempted religious employers from having to provide contraceptive benefits; but, even those exemptions could be scarcely upheld by any religious institution (Reilly, 1).

On the face of it, this seems like it would be a miniscule case in a large pool of adverse impact claims. However, I believe the implication for managers in religious settings is substantial with regards to employees. I believe Belmont Abbey failed in three specific areas in regards to this case: 1) they failed to properly identify the religious tenets in the job analyses and descriptions that exempted them from the law; 2) they failed to make decisions about the employees that were job related; and, 3) they failed to uphold the religious tenets in their mission statement in order to be in compliance with the NC exemptions.

They failed to properly identify the religious tenets in the job analyses and descriptions that exempted them from the law. This failure was pertinent in the decision of the EEOC to press charges against the school. Because the employees argued vehemently that most of them were not Catholic and did not, in fact, hold fast to the tenets of the institution, the EEOC had a clear path to sue for discrimination. This issue should have been addressed before these employees were ever hired. A carefully planned job analysis and job description would have given the college ample means of defending itself, but because the college did not see it fit to carefully process their job decisions, they suffered huge publicity and monetary damages. Managers should be keen to understand how important it is to carefully state what is required of the job in the job analysis and description. By simply taking the time to write sound job descriptions, publicity and monetary damages can be avoided and the best employees will be hired.

They failed to make decisions about the employees that were job related. How ridiculous it is to hire an employee that does not hold fast to the tenets of the institution! If an employee does not agree with the school's mission statement, good selection processes should be able to determine this and avoid unnecessary issues. Good management should also be able to foresee future issues with employees and offer programs to help resolve intermittent complaints with employees. Responsibility ultimately falls on Belmont Abbey to carefully design jobs and programs to help resolve issues before they become adverse treatment or impact claims.

They failed to uphold the religious tenets in their mission statement in order to be in compliance with the NC exemptions. The college should have been more apt to understanding not only the federal law but also the state law regarding gender discrimination. A qualified understanding of the law should have alerted those in management positions to be more thorough in relating their hiring and employment processes to their mission statement.

All in all, Belmont Abbey College should have done a better job at developing their strategies to achieve the goals they desired. Because they failed to hire and abide by the mission statement of the school, they fell subject to a sticky adverse impact claim that did not resolve in their favor. However, one question must be asked: How far can the EEOC go in determining which organizations are religious enough to be in compliance with the law? It seems that the EEOC can unavoidably reason their way into getting what they want. Institutions, therefore, must constantly be on guard and on task to make sure they are in compliance with all of the law, and that this compliance is preceded by good job related decisions.

Colker, Ruth. "Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978)." Major Acts of Congress . ENotes, Web. 22 Nov 2009. http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/pregnancy-discrimination-act.

"Women's health: the pregnancy discrimination act of 1978." The rights of pregnant women and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.. essortment, Web. 22 Nov 2009. http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/pregnancydiscri_sfgu.htm.

McKay, Dawn. " The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978." How the Law Protects You From Pregnancy Discrimination at Work. Career Planing, Web. 22 Nov 2009. http://careerplanning.about.com/cs/legalissues/a/pregnancy.htm.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. December 14, 2000. EEOC, Web. 22 Nov 2009. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html.

"WIC - Women's History in America." Welcome to WIC. Web. 23 Nov. 2009. http://www.wic.org/misc/history.htm

Grohol, John M. "Gender Discrimination in the Workplace." Psych Central. John M Grohol, 09 Oct. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/10/09/gender-discrimination-in-the-workplace/8868.html

"Equal Pay Act of 1963." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

"Glass ceiling." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 19 Nov. 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_ceiling

Vest, Chris. "Compensation Mostly Up for Association Execs; Employee Benefits Down." ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership. 25 May 2006. Web. 17 Nov. 2009. http://www.asaecenter.org/AboutUs
/newsreldetail.cfm?ItemNumber=18305

Reilly, Patrick J. "Look Who's Discriminating Now." The Wall Street Journal (2009): 1. 13 Aug. 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346833989489154.html