Chapter I
Traditionally women have been expected to play an inferior role in life, women are expected to become secretaries, but seldom lawyers, doctors or CEO’s, teachers, but seldom professors, airline stewardesses, but seldom expected to become pilots. The purpose of this research is to not only to argue gender discrimination, aviation industry, but that society must modify these presented patterns of unequal employment opportunities in aviation.
It is general awareness that there are common discrimination practices against female in aviation companies throughout the world. These issues range from of marriage, weight policy, retirement age, pregnancy as well as promotion and physical appearance. Specifically, the sex discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,' and the legislative and judicial exceptions to it, have been the basis of bitter argument between aviation companies and women for decades. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states the following (“The civil rights”):
Unlawful Employment Practices SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(b) Employment ...
... middle of paper ...
... a switchman on grounds that the job was reserved for men only. In this case the courts ruled in favor of the employer for two reasons: First, a state statute that restricted the weight a woman could lift; and secondly, the company had labeled the job "strenuous" and filled with other "disagreeable working conditions. In another case Phillips vs. Martin-Marietta Corporation. The company had a policy of not hiring women with preschool-age children-a constraint that did not extend to male applicants (Binder 1971).
In another case Neal vs. American Airlines, Incorporated which involved the termination of a stewardess six months after her marriage. A clause in the stewardess' contract provided that the company "could, at its preference, free from work a married stewardess at any time following the expiration of six months after her pregnancy or marriage." (Binder 1971).
Therefore, the job could have been done by either of the genders that applied. For this reason, the defense of the airline company was compromised. This led to the court’s decision that the placement of discriminating conditions such as the maximum height rule and the hiring of attractive female candidates only was a violation of Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Indeed, the unlawful and impermissible discrimination exercised by the airline company denied the male applicants the above mentioned privileges and thus was a just cause of action taken by Gregory R.
Sex Discrimination in the American Workplace: Still a Fact of Life. (2000, July 01). Retrieved from National Women's Law Center : www.nwlc.org
While the median weekly pay for women rose in the past decades, it is still largely inferior to the median weekly pay of men employed in the same jobs. This difference of pay also puts an additional burden on women who are expected to stay home when emergencies arise. They cannot in some cases pay for daycare or rely on their companies’ understanding that someone has to take care of the family obligations. In result, they are penalized when comes the time to find candidates for promotion and are seen as not as dependable as their male counterparts. Finally, women face a social bias against them that encompass gender, appearance and race. It effectively punishes them for reasons that are out of their own control and not related to their job performance and skills. Laws against gender-based discrimination, more flexible workplace arrangements and a change in our culture regarding women may help fight discrimination and help women reach their full potential in the workforce. By starting to allow for more flexibility, paying women on a comparable scale than the one used for men, and support women in their desire to take care of their families, corporations could set the tone for a fairer treatment of women in the
Female inequality in workplace is one of the harmful aspect that is afflicting the entire
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states that it is unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…" 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). This law was enacted in an effort to set right the wrongs of the past and instill equity in the workplace; yet a new set of wrongs and social injustices have been created. This newly created set of wrongs and injustices are referred to as reverse discrimination. Reverse discrimination is discrimination against a majority class, and is ever increasing in public-sector employment.
During the 1950s and 1960s, increasing numbers of married women entered the labor force, but in 1963 the average working woman earned only 63% of what a man made. That year The Feminine Mystique, a critique of middle-class patterns was published. The author encouraged readers to seek new roles and responsibilities, to seek their own personal and professional identities rather than have them defined by the outside, male-dominated society.
Based on Title VII of the Civil Right Act, it is unlawful to refuse hiring of an individual based on his or her color, race, sex, national origin or religion. It also prohibit an employer from segregating, classifying or limiting his or her applicant or employees in any way based on their color, race, national origin or religion (Supreme Court of the United States,
to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s...
Despite the passage of protective federal legislation in the forms of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Acts of 1964, there still exists prominent gender discrimination in the workplace that negatively impacts career advancement for women. This is best seen through the case example of Ann Hopkins. Hopkins was denied a career advancement to partner status within Price Waterhouse solely based on her perceived femininity and not the quality of her previous work for the company. This incident occurred in 1982, roughly 20 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. Although the Equal Pay Act and Title VII have made great strides towards economic gender equality in the United States, they are by no means complete. The United States needs additional legislation in order to guarantee equal pay for equal work.
Discrimination continues to run rampant throughout organizations in both the United States and worldwide. The Supreme Court case, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealt with 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees that claim that they had been a victim of gender discrimination. The ensuing pages will discuss the specific issues that the plaintiffs encountered, followed by suggestions from a human resource manager’s stand point in rectifying adverse impact within the Wal-Mart organization.
Jerrie Cobb is a brave woman who dreams of becoming an astronaut. She quit her job to participate in astronaut tests in order to achieve her dream. It is hard for a woman pilot to find a job in the male dominated field of aviation and, before taking the test, she was told that women were not allowed take it. With the development of society, men and women should be gradually become equal because we are in a society with laws of equality. However, in some places, women are still seen as inferior. One of the most obvious ways to prove this, is how hard it can be to find a job. Some companies prefer male employees and even though gender discrimination in hiring is illegal, businesses find ways to work around it. Both Stefan Eriksson and Michael Firth argue, “Women may get fewer firm contacts”(Eriksson, and et. all 307, Firth 891). Sometimes, they consider the gender, not the abilities. According to Garber, the author of “Sex bias in hiring”, “requirement of skills that are not evidenced in the application materials is common”(Garber, 308). This is an unfair situation that leads to the unequal status of men and women that needs to be changed. Women should get more opportunities to find a job because they possess qualities that could be beneficial to companies, such as powerful communication, organizational skills and good focus. Most women even can balance the relationship between family and work.
Introduction- Discrimination affects people all over the world. People of all ethnicities and from all different walks of life are influenced in some way by workplace discrimination. "Discrimination" means unequal treatment. One of the most common elements discriminated against is a persons ethnicity, or their race. This is called Racial Discrimination. While there are many federal laws concerning discrimination, most states have enacted laws that prohibit it. These laws may have different remedies than the federal laws and may, in certain circumstances be more favorable than the federal laws.
Since the time women were eligible to be an employee of a workplace, they have become victims of discrimination. Discrimination is the practice of treating a person or group of people differently from other people (Webster, 2013). Thousands of women have suffered from discrimination in workplaces because they are pregnant, disabled, or of the opposite sex. It is crazy to think that someone would fire a woman because she became pregnant and needed to have some work adjustments ("Pregnancy and parenting,"). A woman goes through a lot to give birth to children, and men will never understand the complications a mother encounters during the pregnancy. Sadly, males think that pregnant women don’t make a working hand, which is totally wrong.
...d women’s biological purpose has provided men a source of comparative advantage in work. It is, therefore, natural for most companies to think that women cannot be as capable as men in terms of assuming strenuous or challenging positions because women, by default, become less participative and more vulnerable when they start to have family and children. Apparently, this situation has led to various gender discriminations in the labor market.
It can be concluded that women are treated in terms of stereotyped impressions of being the lowest class and greater evidence can be found that there are large disparities between the women and the men 's class. It can be seen that women are more likely to play casual roles as they are most likely to take seasonal and part time work so that they can work according to their needs. They are hampered from progressing upward into the organizations as they face problems like lack of health insurance, sexual harassments, lower wage rates, gender biases and attitudes of negative behavior. However, this wouldn’t have hampered the participation of the women in the work force and they continue to increase their efforts which is highly evident in the occupational and job ratios of females in the industry.