Gender Discrimination In The 21st Century

Blatant forms of gender discrimination, over time, have given away to much more subtle forms. Before the passing of the Civil Rights Act it was common for women to be restricted to certain jobs and positions with the claim that such discrimination was necessary for the women’s discrimination. (pg. 347) Such stereotypes are evident the case of Muller v. Oregon case a Supreme Court judge stated that “[a woman] must rest upon and look to her brother for protection...to protect her from the greed as well as passions of man.” (pg. 347 #60) Although still heavily influenced by stereotypes, Gender discrimination of the 21st century is most commonly seen in the form of lower pay, lack of promotions and exclusion from networking opportunities. According

This form of discrimination is based on the combination of an employee’s gender and another condition such as age, pregnancy or race. An example of such a case would Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., a lawsuit that was filed for discriminating against women with pre-school aged children. The company’s policy itself was not concerned with hiring of men, woman without children or women with children older than pre-school age. Such a policy was deemed by the court to be discriminatory in that it was unable to provide a legitimate basis for which to stand. (pg. 356-357) As with the other classes of discrimination under Title VII, a business, in most cases, must be able to provide a BFOQ in order avoid ligation on the basis of

The term “national origin” itself was left undefined and is for the most part left to be judged on a case to case basis. According to the EEOC, national origin discrimination may occur when an employer denies an applicant employment based on the applicant’s apparent ancestral origin or on “the physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group.” (pg. 303) Currently, discrimination on the basis of national origin is the fastest growing complaint. Under Title VII, discrimination is prohibited on a number of aspects. An employer may not discriminate against an applicant for possessing a surname associated with a national origin group, for being perceived to belong to a national origin group, for being connected to an individual of a national origin or for participating in activates that are associated with a national group. (pg.