September/October 2005 Issue Number 75

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

FDIC East October 4-8, 2005 Atlantic City, NJ 

Women Chief Officers Leadership Conference October 20-23, 2005, Bucks County, PA. Go to www.womenfireofficers.org for more information. 

The Motherhood Penalty? 

Does an inherent bias exist against women with children in the workplace? Are employers likely to treat fathers differently than mothers when it comes to hiring and compensation? Recent findings by two Cornell University sociologists suggest that the answer is yes. 

The researchers set up an experiment that gave college students pairs of resumes to review. The resumes included virtually identical qualifications for all candidates, but were different based on gender, marital status, and indications of parenthood (such as membership in a PTA group.) The students did not know that they were part of an experiment, but instead were told that they were giving actual feedback on potential executive level candidates for a fictitious communications company that marketed to young people. The students were asked to screen candidates and rank them on their potential for success in the company, and even starting salaries. The result? Mothers were ranked least competent and committed in nearly every area evaluated. 

The bias seemed to be specifically against mothers and not women in general, as women without children were rated most qualified in the areas of commitment, competence, and the likelihood of promotion. Still, they were not offered the highest starting salaries. Those went to men with children, who were seen most favorably in the majority of assessed areas. Childless men did not fare as well. They beat mothers in most measures but fell behind childless women in every area but one. 

The researchers' conclusion was that the so-called glass ceiling for women might better be described as a motherhood ceiling. Certainly having children can change a person's ambitions and expectations at work (presumably this can happen to both women and men.) What this research suggests is that the assumption about what a mother's capabilities might be precede her into the workplace and may determine the opportunities she finds there. 

Source: Business and Legal Reports, August 3, 2005 

Employee morale has dropped significantly this year, according to a survey done among 3000 workers in various businesses. This year, 55% of those surveyed said morale at their company was good to excellent, down from 70% last year. This is the first year since the surveys began in 1999 that morale dropped. 

Source: Business and Legal Reports, August 31, 2005 

Sexual Harassment Without the Sex 

Is it possible for an employer to sexually harass employees if there is no explicit sexual conduct exhibited? A new ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals accepts the possibility. 

The case concerned several women who worked for the National Education Association (NEA) in Alaska, a labor organization for teachers. The women claimed that their supervisor, Thomas Harvey, frequently mistreated and intimidated them at work through such behaviors as yelling at them in public, using profanity, invading their personal space in a threatening way, shaking his fist at them, and other similar behaviors. None of the behaviors was specifically sexual in nature, but Mr. Harvey only treated women in this manner, not men. A male employee at the organization testified that there was an atmosphere of "general fear of the women at our office." 

The lower court rejected the Title VII claim of the women at NEA-Alaska because the offending behavior was not, on its face, gender or sex related. No one claimed that Mr. Harvey had made lewd comments or sexual overtures or that he referred to women in sex-based terms. However, the 9th Circuit stated (quoting the US Supreme Court), "While sex- or gender-specific content is one way to establish discriminatory harassment, it is not the only way: 'direct comparative evidence about how the alleged harasser treated members of both sexes is always an available evidentiary route'."  

Many anti-harassment classes define sexual harassment as actions or words that are "sexual in nature." The Supreme Court stated in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services that "harassing conduct need not be motivated by sexual desire to support an inference of discrimination on the basis of sex." Several federal circuit courts have gone further, saying that the ultimate question is not the specific nature of the inappropriate behavior, but whether that behavior affected one sex differently than it affected the other. 

Not all circuit courts agree, however. In a recent case, a woman was denied a sexual harassment claim because the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the behavior was not enough based on sex to meet the standard (see Archives June-July 2004). The contradiction between these two recent decisions underscores the continuing debate about how anti-harassment law should be applied in the workplace. 

Source: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Education Association, Alaska 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-35029 

© Linda F. Willing, 2005