Women's Issues

By Dennis Hayashi

Three Decades Spent Defending Women's Rights

Closing the Pay Gap for Women:

The median female worker in California earned nearly 81 percent of the pay earned by the median male worker, according to a 2003 study from the Public Policy Institute of California. Among full-time California workers born in the U.S., the median hourly earnings of white men were $20.83 in 2000. They were $17.03 for white women. That means these women earned 79¢ for every $1 earned by men. If married women received pay that was comparable to men, their family incomes would rise by nearly 6 percent.

The pay gap for women happens because employers still discriminate in several ways. Jobs traditionally held by women pay less than jobs historically held by men. For example, a survey of California public employees in 1993 showed 37.3 percent of new hires among officials and administrators were women. Women were 83 percent of administrative support staff. Consequently, the median salary for a female public employee in California is more than $10,000 less than for a male employee.

Opponents of equal pay argue conscious choices made by women workers and not discrimination account for the wage gap. Economists disagree over the extent to which wage gaps reflect discrimination or differences in education and experience among workers. Still, recent studies demonstrate that between one-quarter and one-half of the gender wage gap remains unexplained even after taking into such differences into account. Many economists attribute some or this entire unexplained portion of the wage gap to discrimination.

Explaining differences in wages by citing the "choices" argument implies that when the educational levels of men and women are the same, the wage gap will disappear. This is not the case. In 1979, one in five women working full time had a college degree. In 2002, one in three workingwomen over age 25 was college graduates. Yet the closing of the wage gap actually slowed during the 1990s.

What can be done to close the wage gap?

Advocates for women employees are pushing for more state legislation requiring equal pay for equivalent jobs. States continue to be the source of innovative remedies for bridging the wage gap. In 1982, Minnesota became the first state to implement equal pay for all public sector employees. New Hampshire established reporting requirements and enforcement procedures to ensure fair pay. Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming have passed bills mandating pay equity studies. And the Maine Department of Labor put into place rules to enforce existing equal pay laws.

Legislative action in California has lagged behind. Our actions have been limited to passing resolutions for "Equal Pay Day" to raise public awareness of the wage gap. As a member of the state Assembly, I will work to see that California helps lead the way in eliminating this pay gap. Women should receive equal pay, period.

Women Short-changed at Wal-Mart:

Exhaustive research from this federal class-action suit--including more than 1.2 million pages of documents from Wal-Mart corporate files--showed women workers made 4.5 percent to 5.6 percent less than male employees with the same levels of experience from 1996 to 2001. Examination of Wal-Mart's own payroll records revealed that male wage earners received on average 37¢ an hour more than women for performing the same jobs.

Two-thirds of all the hourly employees at Wal-Mart were women, yet they held only one-third of store management positions and fewer than 15% of store manager slots. Again according to Wal-Mart's own data, women in almost every important job classification were paid less money than men who had comparable experience and despite the fact the women employees usually earned higher job evaluations and had fewer turnovers than their male counterparts. Female workers at Wal-Mart involved in the lawsuit spoke out about outright bias and demeaning stereotypes on the job. The following are highlights from declarations sworn under penalty of perjury from more than 100 present and former Wal-Mart female employees. They ranged from workers earning hourly wages to former district managers.

• A manager at a Sam's Club in California (owned by Wal-Mart) suggested that a woman employee "doll-up" herself in order to be promoted.
• A store manager in Utah told a female assistant manager that the retail industry is "tough" and not "appropriate" for women.
• Male managers consistently told women workers that men "need to be paid more than women because they have families to support."
• A female manager at an Arizona Wal-Mart was informed she received less pay than a man who wasn't as qualified because she "didn't have the right equipment."
• A woman who was a personnel manager at a Wal-Mart store in Florida was told by her manager that men got more money than women because "men are here to make a career and women aren't. Retail is for housewives who just need to earn extra money."

Fired Because They Were Pregnant

For 12 years I worked full time as an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus in Oakland. My specialties were labor and employment issues, and civil rights cases. Ours was a non-profit, public interest law firm aiding low-income residents so we usually did pro bono work--we didn't charge for our services.

Most of the time we handled cases such as where workers' unemployment insurance claims were denied by the state and employees who did not receive the minimum wage or overtime pay or were not allowed to take legally guaranteed lunch or work breaks. Sometimes our clients were fired for objecting to unlawful treatment on the job.

But what really angered me were cases where women were fired because they became pregnant. Some labored in hotels and restaurants. Others were seamstresses in the region's fast growing garment industry. As they got closer to delivery and their pregnancy became noticeable, they would ask for time off to deliver and recuperate before returning to work.

Sex discrimination law protects employees from being terminated solely on the basis of pregnancy. Furthermore, once women employees are ready to return to work after giving birth, they must get their jobs back.

These women would come into my office upset and frightened. During this moment in their lives, when they should have been preparing to give birth, they instead had to worry about making a living for their families because their employers broke the law.

We would contact the employers and inform them complaints had been filed. We would press to resolve them. Normally employers wouldn't admit the termination was for pregnancy, although a few did. "I can't afford to keep her on right now," some would explain. "Well, it appears to me that my client has been discriminated against," I would respond. "We can either resolve it informally or file a complaint on behalf of my client with the authorities." Most of the time we had to file a complaint, either with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing or with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

My law firm didn't have a lot of resources. So we were careful about the cases we actually filed. We only went with those that had clear merit. It soon became apparent to government investigators my clients were in the right more often than not.

After filing the complaint, cases would usually get settled after the state or federal investigator got involved. Sometimes the investigator helped negotiate a compromise settlement. Or I would deal directly with the employer's attorney, who realized once the case was being investigated and the evidence exposed that his or her client faced legal liability. Then they would settle on pretty good terms for my client.

These experiences are why I actively advocated for the Family and Medical Leave Act drafted in 1984 by the National Partnership for Women and Families. It was the first national policy designed to help working people fulfill both their work and family responsibilities.

When I was asked to serve on the transition team for then-President-elect Bill Clinton in late 1992, the group I worked with analyzed this legislation that had been vetoed by the first President Bush. We recommended that President-elect Clinton sign it. That became one of his first major acts after taking office in early 1993.

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows employees of employers covered by the law to take unpaid leave for up to a total of 12 workweeks in any 12 months because of the birth of a child and to care for the newborn. The act also allows employees leave to care for a family member (child, spouse, or parent) with a serious health condition. An employee is also entitled to maintain health benefits while on leave. Workers generally have a right to return to the same or equivalent position with commensurate pay, benefits and working conditions.

The vast majority of working families confront a broad range of challenges--from childcare to elder care--that cannot be easily solved alone. Today most mothers and fathers work for pay. One in five working parents cares for an elderly relative. Worries about childcare and nursing homes are commonplace. I believe these important work and family issues are not just personal dilemmas. Everyone has a role to play in solving them, from communities to employers to elected officials.

Protecting Women From Bias

If you think discrimination against women is only part of the past in our state, think again. In 2000, a young woman was working as a clerk at the counter of a large state office in a rural Central Valley county. One of her co-workers repeatedly subjected her to suggestive sexual comments and risqué jokes. She repeatedly asked him to stop. After that failed, she complained to her supervisor, who was also male. Management at the office took no action to halt the harassment.

When the co-worker learned she had complained about him to their supervisor, he tried running her down with his car in the parking lot. She went to court to obtain a restraining order from a local judge. During the court hearing, her supervisor from work testified on behalf of the assailant. The judge sided with the woman and criticized the state department for failing to address what he felt were legitimate complaints of sexual harassment.

The female state worker also filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which I headed. Even as this case was pending, instead of disciplining the offending male co-worker, this state department transferred him to another location without any penalty being imposed. There, he started sexually harassing another woman.

Given the magnitude and pattern of the harassment and management's failure to intervene, the woman won a settlement through our department in 2001 in the six-figure range. As part of the settlement, this state department was ordered to institute badly needed management training on how to properly respond to sexual harassment.

From the beginning of my tenure at both the U.S. Office for Civil Rights and the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, one thing I made sure federal or state personnel investigated were cases involving discrimination and harassment where there was evidence of institutional bias. This is more than chance prejudice against one or two individuals, but a pattern of discrimination that appears to be occurring across an agency, company or area. I told my investigators and attorneys to make sure when checking into cases they were not overlooking broad patterns of behavior or policies and practices that illegally impacted large numbers or whole classes of people.

Reproductive Health and Rights:

Last year, we celebrated the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions ever handed down. The great majority of Californians support a woman's right to choose. So do I. The biggest threat to choice comes from Republican appointees to the state and federal benches, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. The last decision by the high court involving choice produced a narrow 5-4 majority for preserving Roe v. Wade. The balance could shift if President Bush picks more Supreme Court justices. That is one reason the 2004 presidential election is so important. Meanwhile, we must resolve to defend a woman's right to choose in California. The Reproductive Privacy Act, passed in California last year, offers the state some protection against the Bush administration's hostility to reproductive rights. However, we must not become complacent. The state still faces an array of threats that could result in reduced access to reproductive health services and further restrictions on reproductive rights.

At stake is ensuring that 1 million low-income women and men in California receive family planning services from the Family PACT program. These services go to women who often have limited or no health insurance. A push by anti-choice forces to ban the abortion pill RU-486 could also have a profound affect on access to services in California, where more than one-third of the counties currently have no abortion provider.

Legal rights mean little unless state government backs them up. I will make sure these protections and funding continue. I will work to protect programs in both health services and education.