Human Resources Case Study

Human Resources Management Issues, Challenges and Trends: “Now and Around the Corner”, pages 103–118. Copyright © 2019 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 103

CHAPTER 5

EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN: NOT YET

William J. Woska

INTRODUCTION

Women in Rwanda, Iceland, Vietnam, and 131 other nations have constitutionally guaranteed equal rights, but American women do not. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that the United States Constitution already guarantees equal rights (Przybyla, 2017). Adoption of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution is more than symbolic. “It has implications for how gender-based violence and workplace sex discrimination are addressed and litigated, for cor- porate standards involving accommodations for pregnant women, and for guar- anteed access to prenatal care and contraception.” Furthermore, “it could force a narrowing of the gender-based imbalance in top leadership roles” (Spier, 2017).

Just like African Americans, women started from the back of the pack when the United States was founded. For more than a century, they could not vote. In most states, they could not serve on juries. Into the 1970s, they could be barred from getting a credit card without a male co-signer. It was only recently that the barrier keeping them from military combat fell.

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 . I n f o r m a t i o n A g e P u b l i s h i n g .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Comprehensive Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS AN: 2006258 ; Ronald R. Sims.; Human Resources Management Issues, Challenges and Trends: 'Now and Around the Corner' Account: s4264928.main.eds

104 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

There is a sordid underpinning of societal discrimination behind the thousand indignities, little and big, that women have to deal with to this day. Examples in- clude the shortage of women in executive positions in corporate America, the pay inequities, the unequal distribution of child-raising responsibility, and the histori- cal abuse endured by individuals in positions of authority.

Expectations about attributes and behaviors appropriate to women and men are shaped by culture. Gender identities and gender relations are critical aspects of culture because they shape the way daily life is lived in the family and also in the workforce. The cultural meanings given to being a man or a woman is apparent in the division of labor. History has provided clear patterns of “women’s work” and “men’s work” that must be overcome in addressing gender equality issues in the workplace.

The inequality that exists in the workforce is apparent irrespective of argu- ments that may be used to justify the underrepresentation of women. For example, the extreme work demands of corporate environments, inexperience, not being “tough” enough, and family responsibilities, are perceptions that impact execu- tive level opportunities for women. Other questions impacting women seeking top management positions include:

• Are men and women different to the extent that women require different treatment?

• Are women’s values and approaches to workplace issues so different that when entering the work force women find that the male culture is not to their likening and driven off?

• Do women need to become more like men to become corporate executives? • Are women who take time away from work for family caregiving respon-

sibilities subject to questions concerning their work ethic? • Do women have a problem in communicating with men in the C-suite? • Is there an assumption that assertive/aggressive women lack leadership

potential?

When it comes to the barriers holding women back from achieving greater rep- resentation in leadership positions, the fact that there are small numbers of women in many fields point to social and environmental factors contributing to the under- representation of women. The striking disparity between men and women in the C-suite, irrespective of their preparation through education and experience, may lead to the conclusion that women are being held to a higher standard and need to do more to prove themselves.

THE ABSENCE OF WOMEN IN C-SUITE

Only 18 percent of C-suite positions are held by women even though women have been more prepared than men when entering the workforce in a professional capacity for many years (Pham, 2016). Almost 47 percent of the workforce are

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Equal Rights for Women: Not Yet • 105

women (DeWolf, 2017). Women earned 52 percent of doctoral degrees for the eighth straight year and 57 percent of master’s degrees in 2016 (Perry, 2017). Women received more law degrees (Olson, 2016). More women than men are enrolled in medical schools (Chandler, 2018). Women earn 60 percent of under- graduate degrees (Warner, 2014). However, women continue to be underrepre- sented not only in the professions but at all levels in executive, administrative, and professional positions, in addition to elected positions in Congress and at the state and local levels.

As of January 2017, there were 27 female Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Fortune 500 companies. By April 2017 there were 24 women leading three major corporations have announced that they will be stepping down (Fortune, 2017). The following is a listing of the number of women CEOs of Fortune 500 compa- nies during the last 10 years (Suh, 2015).

Women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies (2008–2017)

Year No. CEOs % Women

2008 12 2.4

2009 15 3.0

2010 15 3.0

2011 12 2.4

2012 18 3.6

2013 20 4.0

2014 24 4.8

2015 24 4.8

2016 21 4.2

2017 27 5.4

Women are leading some of the largest companies in the United States in- cluding General Motors, IBM, PepsiCo, and Lockheed Martin. Although Fortune Magazine recently released its most recent Fortune 500 list reporting 32 women (6.4%) in CEO positions for 2018, an all-time high, the numbers of female CEOs are so small that one new posting can noticeably alter the statistics.

Women are also absent in other C-suite positions including Chief Financial Officer (CFO). On a global basis, only 11 percent of the positions are filled with women. Only 19 percent of women serve in Board of Director positions. Since it is not unusual that board positions are often filled by experienced CEOs and CFOs, and with so few women in those positions, the shortage of female execu- tives, results in minimal competition against their male counterparts (Soledad, 2017).

Fortune Magazine annually publishes a listing of their ranking of most pow- erful women (MPW). There are 126 women who fell off Fortune’s MPW list

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

106 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

between 2000 and 2015. Of those, 30 retired purposely or are over 65 and not otherwise interested in another executive position at another company. Four wom- en had health problems or passed away. Sixteen were replaced by higher-ranked women. Others went to small startups, private equity, and nonprofits or work part- time as directors on boards. Only 12 went on to another major operating role in a large company, and only eight hold the CEO title at a private or public company of any size. Only 17 (13%) of the women once on the MPW list had another major role at a large public company (Reingold, 2016).

There are a limited number of CEO positions, and as companies pursue inter- nal succession, becoming an external chief executive is difficult. In 2015 ten per- cent of new CEOs were outside hires. That means that a person of either gender who doesn’t get the job at his or her own company may find difficulty getting one elsewhere. Even though there are a limited number of CEO positions, scarcity does not explain the fact that there are only 32 women in chief executive positions in Fortune 500 companies in 2018.

BACKGROUND

When the Declaration of Independence proclaims that all men are created equal, it means that all human beings, regardless of religion, sex, or skin color, possess the same natural rights. The Founders were well aware that different people are unequal in physical and mental capacities. But however noticeable the differences between people may be, they are never so great as to deprive them of their rights. Since all men and women share a common human nature, they are all therefore equally entitled to the same natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There will always be inequalities with respect to skill, ability, income, or edu- cational attainment. These should not be confused with the purpose of equal rights as set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Whether through luck, skill, or determination, some people will always succeed more than others, and others will fail. As long as no one’s rights are being denied, inequalities are perfectly normal and desirable expressions of natural diversity (Shaw, 2012).

Civil rights ensure equality and include protection from unlawful discrimina- tion for both men and women. Many civil rights in the United States stem from action in response to the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights Movement was a struggle for social justice that took place primarily during the 1950s and 1960s for blacks to gain equal rights under the law in the United States. However, there were many significant occurrences affecting civil rights that preceded that era going back an entire century to the United States Supreme Court decision denying citizenship and basic rights to blacks (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857). The attempt to provide equal rights through the Civil Rights Movement has addressed de-segregation issues including schools (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 1954), public transportation (Bailey v. Patterson, 1962), inter-racial mar-

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Equal Rights for Women: Not Yet • 107

riage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), and the right of same sex couples (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).

The concept of civil rights is an outgrowth of historical situations in which rights have been denied to members of certain groups. Since the adoption of the Constitution, groups whose members have been denied rights have been defined mainly by race, sex, age, and sexual orientation. Especially pervasive examples have included denial of the right to vote to African Americans living in the South in the century following the Civil War and the denial of the right to vote for women until the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 (Salem Press, 1999).

The Equal Pay Act (EPA) was passed by Congress in 1963 requiring that em- ployers pay all employees equally for equal work, regardless of whether the em- ployees are male or female. Women, on average, earn less than men in nearly every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio. The earnings of women workers in each state ranges from a low of 70 percent to a high of 89 percent compared to a man’s earnings (see Appendix A). Even in the professions, women earn considerably less than men. In 2015 women lawyers earned less than 90 percent of their male counterpart’s salary (see Appendix B). It is now 2018, more than a half century since the enactment of the EPA, and women earn 79 cents for every dollar earned by a man (Sheth & Gould, 2017).

The only specific written guarantee of women’s rights in the Constitution is the 19th Amendment, which declared, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on ac- count of sex.” (U.S. Const. amend XIX). A question still in need of being resolved in the 21st century is what are the rights of women with respect to gender equality?

The History Behind the Equal Rights Amendment

Alice Paul was one of the most prominent members of the 20th century wom- en’s rights movement. She led the change for women’s suffrage and equal rights in the United States. In 1916 she founded the National Woman’s Party (NWP). The NWP was a small, radical group that not only lobbied but conducted marches, political boycotts, picketing of the White House, and civil disobedience. As a result, they were attacked, arrested, imprisoned, and force-fed. But the country’s conscience was stirred, and support for woman suffrage grew.

In 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote. Paul believed that the right to vote was the first step in the quest for full equality. In 1922 she reorganized the NWP with the goal of eliminating all discrimination against women. “The work of the NWP is to take sex out of law to give women the equality in law they have won at the polls” (Paul, 1922).

In 1923, in Seneca Falls, New York, for the 75th anniversary of the 1848 Wom- an’s Rights Convention, she introduced the “Lucretia Mott Amendment,” (an early civil rights activist) which read:

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

108 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.

In 1943, Paul adapted the ERA to reflect the language of the 15th (right to vote not denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude) and 19th Amendments (right to vote not denied on account of sex) (Langford, A., n.d.). The revised “Alice Paul Amendment” reads:

The Equal Rights Amendment

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Between 1923 and 1970, the ERA was introduced in every session of Congress, but buried in committee. In 1971 the women’s liberation movement demanded a gender-neutral society in which men and women would be treated exactly the same, no matter how reason-able it might be to respect differences between them. The ERA was the chosen vehicle to achieve this goal.

A radical feminist organization called the National Organization for Women stormed the halls of Congress and forced a vote on the ERA. Only 24 members of the House and eight in the Senate voted against it. On March 22, 1972, Congress sent the amendment to the states to ratify it (Schlafly, 2007). Congress placed a seven-year time limit on the ratification process.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is rati- fied by three-fourths (38 of 50) of the states. The seven-year deadline expired on March 22, 1979. Only 35 of the necessary 38 states had ratified the amendment. The ratification process was subsequently extended by Congress an additional three years to June 30, 1982. There were no additional ratifications prior to the deadline on the extension approved by Congress.

The ERA has been introduced into every session of Congress since 1982 but has not made it to the floor for a vote. Nevertheless, the ERA may still have a lifeline to passage. On March 21, 2017, the State of Nevada became the 36th state to approve the amendment to the Constitution (Chereb, 2017). Consider- ing the women’s movement following the 2016 presidential election, if two ad- ditional states ratify the amendment satisfying the requirement of approval by three-fourths of the states, the decision would be up to Congress as to the ERA becoming the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Equal Rights for Women: Not Yet • 109

OPPOSITION TO THE ERA

Rose Schneiderman, an emigrant from Poland, was a labor activist in the early 1900s who supported women’s rights including a living wage, housing, and other basic rights along-side the need for education, community, and self-development. She served as president of the Women’s Trade Union League (WTUL) from 1926 to 1950. In 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) appointed her to the Labor Advisory Board of the National Recovery Administration. She was a key architect of FDR’s New Deal and the Social Security Act.

Schneiderman was a life-long opponent of the ERA. She and other activists, many of whom were Jewish and Italian women from immigrant backgrounds, did not consider themselves “feminists,” since they believed that the term applied more specifically to middle class women activists who had focused specifically on gender issues. Schneiderman believed that the idea of absolute equality between men and women was a “meaningless distraction” when working women experi- enced such an extreme measure of workplace discrimination (Young, 2016).

Schneiderman’s opposition to the ERA was that protective legislation for wom- en proposed by the WTUL would no longer apply if the amendment was ratified. In 1950 Arizona’s Senator Carl Hayden introduced the “Hayden Amendment” proposing that a new section to the ERA be added protecting any rights, benefits, or exemptions previously conferred by law upon women. Although Schneider- man supported the amendment, other ERA activists, including the NWP, refused to support the change. Schneiderman passed away in 1972, the same year that Congress sent the ERA to the states for ratification.

Phyllis Schlafly, a longtime conservative activist, led the fight against the ERA in the 1970s. Her argument was that even though most people would not find the proposed language objectionable, the courts would use it to push through policies that many of those same people would dislike. Furthermore, she claimed that a gender-neutral society would deprive a woman of the fundamental right to stay home and care for her family. It would mark the end of the traditional family.

Congress sent the ERA to the states in 1972. A year later 30 states had rati- fied the amendment. Schlafly launched the STOP-ERA anti-feminist organization formed to prevent ratification of the gender-equality amendment. She took to the lecture circuit to urge state legislatures to reject the constitutional change. She echoed Schneiderman’s argument about destroying labor legislation protecting working women in addition to arguing that an ERA would force women into mili- tary service and would lead to laws that would make gay marriage and abortion legal. There was a considerable slowing of state ratifications following the STOP- ERA movement with only five additional states providing approval (Haberman, 2016).

Schlafly’s arguments against changes contained in the ERA subsequently hap- pened over time as a result of legislation and/or court decisions. Schlafly passed away in 2016.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

110 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

The Continuing Struggle for Equality

When it comes to equality in the workplace, women see it as a work in progress where men view it as mission accomplished. Significantly more men than women say their companies are level playing fields and have plenty of women leaders, even in places where less than ten percent of top executives are female. This dis- connect between the opinions of men and women matters given that a large per- centage of middle and senior managers are men. A woman’s daily interaction with her immediate supervisor often sets the course with respect to her opportunity for career advancement (Fuhrmans, 2017).

During the civil rights movement, there came a time when it was no longer OK just to frown on George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door or Bull Connor aiming his fire hoses at black people. There had to be institutional change and a societal mind shift.

On January 21, 2017, hundreds of thousands of women gathered in what is known as the Women’s March on Washington. More than one million people gathered in Washington and in cities around the country and the world to protest the inauguration of President Donald Trump. What started as a Facebook post by a Hawaiian retiree became an unprecedented international rebuke of a new president that packed cities large and small from London to Los Angeles, Paris to Park City, Utah, Miami to Melbourne, Australia. Many in the nation’s capital and other cities said they were inspired to join because of Trump’s divisive campaign and his disparagement of women, minorities and immigrants (Stein, Hendrix, & Hauslohner, 2017). Participants feared that the new administration and the Repub- lican-led Congress would roll back reproductive, civil and human rights.

As the year progressed, millions of women energized by the Women’s March on Washington and frustrated by the continuing abuse and sexual harassment by men in positions of authority, came together in the #MeToo Movement. The pur- pose of the #MeToo Movement was to encourage women who have experienced sexual assault or harassment to share their experience irrespective of the costs that may go with it. Sexual harassment is not about sex. It’s about work and power. It is a means of policing gender roles and maintaining hierarchies. Sexual harass- ment undermines a woman’s work performance and calls her competency into question. It pressures her to conform to stereotypes and penalizes deviation. It subordinates her to men in power and reminds her of who ultimately controls her career (Arnow-Richmond, 2018). #MeToo provided an opportunity to get people to understand the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault in society.

As the New Year (2018) began more than 300 women in Hollywood—ex- ecutives, actors, agents, writers, directors, and producers—announced the forma- tion of Time’s Up, an effort to counter systemic sexual harassment in industries across the country. It is different than the #MeToo movement in that it aims to address workplace sexism through legal recourse, improved representation in board rooms, and placement of women in chief executive positions. The initia-

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Equal Rights for Women: Not Yet • 111

tive includes efforts to create legislation that will penalize companies that tolerate harassment and will discourage the use of nondisclosure agreements that have helped silence victims of abuse. Time’s Up also includes a legal defense fund that will connect victims of sexual harassment, assault, or abuse, with legal represen- tation (Garber, 2018).

Times Up, like #MeToo, is an effort to counter systemic sexual harassment throughout the workplace - to call out abuse of women, especially by men in positions of authority. “For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power of those men. But their time is up” (Russonello, 2018).

The #MeToo and Times Up movements have again surfaced the issue of the need for an ERA and constitutional equality. There is broad support for an ERA with more than 90 percent of Americans supporting equal rights for women. In fact, more than 80 percent believe women already have equal rights (Neuwirth, 2018).

The #MeToo and Times Up movements may be a beginning whereby men make a mind shift away from the attitude that women can be accommodated only to the extent that it doesn’t inconvenience other men (Brown, 2017). Neverthe- less, the process of providing equal rights for women cannot be accomplished until the United States Constitution is amended providing equal rights for women.

The absence of equal rights for women may be read into a 2000 United States Supreme Court case. In a 5–4 decision, United States v. Morrison, the Court in- validated the section of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, held that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteen Amendment, to en- act this section. If an ERA had been a part of the Constitution, it is likely that VAWA would have been validated by the Court.

TITLE VII – IMPACT ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) makes it “an unlawful em- ployment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Civil Rights Act of 1964). The use of the term “sex” was not included in Title VII legislation first proposed to Congress. It was not until the legislation was debated on the House floor that “sex” was added to prevent discrimination against another minority group—women (Freeman, 2008). Initially only intended to provide protection for women from discrimination, the prohibition of sex discrimination applied to both males and females.

The term “sexual harassment” did not originate until several years later. The term was used by women’s groups in Massachusetts in the early 1970s. The term was further used in a report to the president and chancellor of the Massachusetts

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

112 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

Institute of Technology in 1973 addressing various forms of gender issues (Rowe, 1990).

In the years immediately following passage of Title VII, sexual harassment claims were rarely brought under the statute, and when they were, courts dismissed them, reasoning that Title VII was not applicable. Finally, in the mid-1970s, courts began to accept sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination under Title VII. In 1986 the United States Supreme Court accepted its first sexual harassment case, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson. The primary question before the court was whether a hostile working environment created by unwelcome sexual behavior is a form of employment discrimination prohibited by Title VII when no economic loss or quid pro quo harassment exists. In a unanimous decision, the court found that the Vinson’s charges were sufficient to claim hostile environment sexual ha- rassment. This case became the cornerstone of answering sexual harassment ques- tions under Title VII (Woska, 2015).

Five additional cases were accepted by the Court following Meritor which have clarified and established sexual harassment law. Nevertheless, sexual as- sault and/or harassment incidences are all too common and continue to be brought forward on an individual basis. In August 2017 a well-known and powerful Hol- lywood producer was accused of sexual harassment which was followed by sim- ilar accusations by many other women not only in the entertainment industry, but throughout the workforce against men in positions of authority. The #MeToo movement was born.

ERA—A CHALLENGE FOR HUMAN RESOURCES

The Equal Pay Act (EPA) was approved by Congress in 1963. The EPA prohibits pay dis-crimination based on sex and states that men and women must be paid equally for substantially equal work performed in the same establishment (Equal Pay Act of 1963). In 1963, women who worked full-time, year-round, made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by men (Cho & Kramer, 2016). In 1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed to prohibit discrimination in employ- ment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. The scope of Title VII is much broader than the EPA and makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex in pay and benefits (Civil Rights Act of 1964).

It is now more than a half century later and women earn 79 cents for every dol- lar earned by a man. Compensation policies are administered by human resource (HR) departments throughout the United States. The fact that the pay disparity between men and women continues 55 years after enactment of the EPA is signifi- cant with respect to what appears to be HR’s limited role in contributing to and/or establishing pay policy within an organization.

Evolving technology is having a direct impact on HR. Although many of the basic functions and responsibilities remain the same including recruitment, man- aging employee benefit programs, providing advice on HR issues, regulations, and policies, and handling staff issues and disciplinary procedures, the role of HR is not only evolving, but expanding. It is important that HR be looked upon as a

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Equal Rights for Women: Not Yet • 113

team of experts who can work hand-in-hand with top management to influence and direct employee engagement, company culture, and other change within an organization.

Equal rights for women will require HR to address issues including paid pa- rental leave, pay equity policies, gender diversity, subsidized on-site child care, and improving the culture around flexible work policies. Flexible work options such as telecommuting, flexible work schedules, freelance work, job sharing, and professional part-time opportunities are critical issues for women who are dispro- portionately impacted by burdens imposed by family caregiving responsibilities. Women are more likely than men to take time out of the work force for family reasons, and these interruptions hurt the advancement of their careers and earn- ings. Offering more flexible workplaces can help attract and retain more women and move toward gender equity at all levels within an organization (Onley, 2016). HR must take the initiative to make flexibility and work-life balance a part of the wider company culture.

The fact that the private sector provides limited information with respect to salary ranges for work that requires the same knowledges, skills, and abilities, continues to be a factor as to why women earn considerably less than men for the same or similar work. Greater transparency in pay systems is associated with a smaller pay gap between men and women. By making salary ranges for job cat- egories available, like the public sector, employers provide women with informa- tion that depicts a fair and equitable comparison with men.

HR is a key agent of change in an organization. HR’s role as a change agent is to replace resistance with resolve, planning with results, and fear of change with excitement about its possibilities (Ulrich, 1998). HR is unique from other services in that it provides assistance to employees irrespective of where they work within a company. Business plans and strategies and implementation of these plans are dependent on how HR develops innovative approaches to resolve employee-related issues. With respect to equal rights for women, for HR to be an effective change agent, it’s critical that they have the ability to influence the deci- sions made by top management to address gender diversity initiatives necessary to attain equal rights.

Some of these employment policies such as parenting and child care assistance have been available with a few employers, most notably in high technology com- panies. However, it will be necessary for flexible workplace practices to become as common as paid vacation benefits throughout the workforce before women can feel that they have equal rights. HR must be at the forefront as an agent of con- tinuous transformation, shaping the processes and culture that together improve an organization’s capacity for change.

CONCLUSION

History may eventually reveal that the 2017 Women’s March on Washington was the beginning of a new political landscape with respect to women’s rights. The Women’s March was not a one and done event. Women have become more en-

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

114 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

gaged and involved as disparate groups of females have come together recogniz- ing the inequality that has festered since the beginning of our democracy. The feeling of feminist solidarity born of the Women’s March brought power that has swelled well beyond politics (Wildermuth, 2018).

State and federal legislation is beginning to address pay equity issues instru- mental to bridging the pay gap between men and women. Pay equity laws have been adopted in several states including California, New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts (Seyfarth, 2016).

Effective January 1, 2018, the State of California banned an employer from inquiries into an individual’s salary history (California Labor Code §432.3). The new law applies to all employers, including state and local government. Califor- nia joins a growing list of jurisdictions across the country that have prohibited salary history inquiries including the states of Delaware, Massachusetts, and Or- egon. Legislation has been introduced in other states including Texas, Florida, Montana, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In addition, many other cities and local ju- risdictions have either adopted or are considering similar legislation including New York City, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, and New Orleans (Hartman, 2017). The elimination of an individual’s past salary on job applications prevents gender discrimination from being passed from one workplace to another by basing an employee’s pay on his or her past salary.

Gender equality in the workplace is about everyone having an equal chance. It is not about favoritism, granting privileges, or offering special assistance to over- come an obstacle. The purpose of gender equality is simply to remove barriers to create a level playing field irrespective of sex. Perhaps, with a political landscape that appears to be in the process of change, equal rights for women will become a reality with the passage of the ERA as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

APPENDIX A: THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT THE GENDER PAY GAP: AAUW STATE MEDIAN ANNUAL EARNINGS AND

EARNING RATIO FOR FULL-TIME, YEAR-ROUND WORKERS, BY STATE AND GENDER, 2016

Male Female Earnings Ratio

1 New York $53,124 $47,358 89% 2 California $51,417 $45,489 88% 3 Florida $41,586 $36,112 87% 4 District of Columbia $75,343 $64,908 86% 5 Vermont $47,840 $41,122 86% 6 Colorado $51,264 $43,206 84% 7 Alaska $56,422 $47,518 84% 8 Maine $47,890 $4,024 84% 9 Maryland $61,321 $51,247 84%

10 Hawaii $48,373 $41,224 83% 11 New Hampshire $53,581 $44,550 83%

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Equal Rights for Women: Not Yet • 115

Male Female Earnings Ratio

12 Minnesota $53,200 $44,132 83% 13 Tennessee $73,661 $35,916 82% 14 Massachusetts $62,868 $51,666 82% 15 Delaware $50,924 $41,771 82% 16 New Mexico $72,297 $34,668 82% 17 Georgia $46,712 $38,278 82% 18 North Carolina $45,180 $36,987 82% 19 Arizona $46,386 $37,966 82% 20 Rhode Island $53,400 $43,541 82% 21 New Jersey $62,311 $5,574 81% 22 Nevada $45,326 $36,681 81%

United States $51,640 $41,554 80% 23 Virginia $55,817 $44,798 80% 24 Kentucky $45,521 $36,259 80% 25 Connecticut $64,220 $50,991 79% 26 Texas $47,351 $37,576 79% 27 Oregon $50,676 $40,193 79% 28 Illinois $53,111 $42,108 79% 29 Pennsylvania $51,780 $41,047 79% 30 Missouri $46,543 $36,514 78% 31 Arkansas $41,156 $32,242 78% 32 Michigan $50,869 $39,825 78% 33 Wisconsin $50,399 $39,440 78% 34 South Dakota $54,384 $35,436 78% 35 South Carolina $45,038 $35,043 78% 36 Nebraska $47,352 $36,699 78% 37 Kansas $47,891 $37,091 77% 38 Ohio $50,227 $38,750 77% 39 Wyoming $51,234 $39,338 77% 40 Washington $58,864 $45,056 77% 41 Iowa $49,385 $37,791 77% 42 Idaho $45,305 $34,403 76% 43 Mississippi $42,146 $31,757 75% 44 Alabamas $47,034 $35,012 74% 45 North Dakota $51,789 $38,407 74% 46 Indiana $49,157 $36,440 74% 47 Oklahoma $46,027 $33,972 74% 48 Montana $46,545 $34,028 73% 49 West Virginia $46,029 $33,228 72% 50 Utah $51,099 $36,022 70% 51 Louisana $50,031 $34,793 70%

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

116 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

APPENDIX B

REFERENCES

Arnow-Richmond, R. (2018, January 28). Why we must separate sex from sexual harass- ment. San Francisco Chronicle, p. E5.

Bailey v. Patterson. (1962). 369 U.S. 31. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. (1954). 347 U.S. 483. Brown, W. (2017, November 26). Chronic inequality fosters mistreatment of women. San

Francisco Chronicle, p. B1. California Labor Code. § 432.3. Chandler, M. (2018). Women are now a majority of entering medical students nationwide.

The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/ women-are-now-a-majority-of-entering-medical-students-nationwide/2018/1/22.html

Chereb, S. (2017). Nevada ratifies equal rights amendment on 45th anniversary of passage by congress. Las Vegas Review Journal. Retrieved from https://www.reviewjournal.

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Equal Rights for Women: Not Yet • 117

com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-ratifies-equal-rights-amendment- on-45th-anniversary-of-passage-by-congress

Cho, R., & Kramer, A., (2016). Everything you need to know about the Equal Pay Act. ICRW. Retrieved from https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Everything-You- Need-to-know-about-the-Equal-Pay-Act.pdf

Civil Rights Act of 1964. (1964). §7, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. DeWolf, M., (2017). 12 stats about working women. U.S. Department of Labor blog. Re-

trieved from https://blog.dol.gov/2017/03/01/12-stats-about-working-women Dred Scott v. Sanford. (1857). 60 U.S. 393. Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8 § 206(d). Fortune Editors. (2017). These are the women leading fortune 500 companies. Fortune. Re-

trieved from http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/fortune-500-women-ceos/ Freeman, J. (2008). We will be heard: Women’s struggles for political power in the United

States. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield. Furhmans, V. (2017, October 10). The hidden battle of the sexes at work. The Wall Street

Journal, R1, R2. Garber, M. (2018). Is this the next step for the #MeToo movement? The Atlantic. Retrieved

from https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01beyond-metoo-can- times-up-effect-real-change/549482/

Haberman, C. (2016). Phyllis Schlafly’s lasting legacy in defeating the era. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/us/phyllis-schlaflys- lasting legacy-in-defeating-the-era.html

Hartman, M. (2017). The old salary history question could be on its way out for good. Mar- ketplace. Retrieved from https://www.marketplace.org/2017/10/25/world/new-laws- ban-employers-using-salary-history-hiring

Langford, A. (n.d.). The equal rights amendment: a debate. National Woman’s Party. Re- trieved from http://nationalwomansparty.org/the-equal-rights-amendment-a-debate/

Lawrence v. Texas. (2003). 539 U.S. 558. Loving v. Virginia. (1967). 388 U.S. 1,. Neuwirth, J. (2018). Unbelievably, women still don’t have equal rights in the Constitution.

Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-neuwirth- equal-rights-amendment-for-women-metoo-2018105-story.html

Olson, E. (2016). More law degrees for women, but fewer good jobs. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/business/dealbook/more-law- degrees-for-women-but-fewer-good-jobs.html

Onley, D. (2016). HR key in helping employers achieve gender equity. SHRM. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/1116/pages/hr-key-in-help- ing-organizations-achieve-gender-equality.aspx

Paul, A. (1922). Who is Alice Paul? National Women’s Party. Retrieved from http://national- womensparty.org/learn/who-is-alice-paul/

Perry, M. (2017). Women earned majority of doctoral degrees in 2016 for 8th straight year and outnumber men in grad school 135 to 100. AEI. Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/ publication/women-earned-majority-of-doctoral-degrees-in-2016-for-8th-straight- year-and-outnumber-men-in-grad-school-135-to-100/

Pham, T. (2016). Think you’re not biased against women at work? Read this. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbesw.com/sites/break-the-future/2016/12/20/think- youre-not-biased-against-women-at-work-read-this#3d72579b7e5a

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

118 • WILLIAM J. WOSKA

Przybyla, H. (2017, March 15). ERA fight gets new life from California democrat. USA Today, 1A, 2A.

Reingold, J. (2016). Why top women are disappearing from corporate America. Fortune. com. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/women-corporate-america/

Rowe, M. (1990). Barriers to equality: The power of subtle discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 3(2), 153–163.

Russonello, G. (2018). Read Oprah Winfrey’s golden globes speech. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/07/movies/oprah-winfrey-gold- en-globes- speech-transcript.html

Salem Press. (1999). The civil rights movement. Retrieved from https://www.salempress. com/press_titles.html?book=104

Schlafly, P. (2007). Equal rights for women: wrong then, wrong now. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/la-op-schalfly8apr08-story.html

Seyfarth, S. (2016). The New U.S. Pay Equity Laws: Answering the biggest questions. Retrieved from www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/publications/PayEquityBrochurd.pdf

Shaw, J. (2012). Not all equality is equal: What does equality mean? Daily Signal. Re- trieved from http://dailysignal.com/2012/01/30/not-all-equality-is-equal-what- does-equality-mean/

Sheth, S., & Gould, S. (2017). 5 charts show how much more men make than women. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/gender-wage- pay-gap-charts-2017-3/#women-with-children-are-penalized-while-men-with-chil- dren-are-rewarded-4

Soledad, C. (2017). Why are women set up to fail in the c-suite? Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/09/28/women-c-suite-leadership-ceos/

Spier, J. (2017, May 15). ERA fight gets new life from California democrat. USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.pressreader.com/usa/usa-today-us-edi- tion/20170315/281565175570209

Stein, P., Hendrix, S., & Hauslohner, A. (2017). Women’s marches: more than one million protesters vow to resist President Trump. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https:// www.washingtonpost.com/.../womens...washington...protesters-vow-to-resistt...

Suh, M. (2015). Women CEOs in fortune 500 companies, 1995–2017. Pew Research Cen- ter. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/chart/women-ceos-in-fortune- 500-companies-1995-2014/

Ulrich, D. (1998). A new mandate for human resources. Harvard Business Review. Re- trieved from https://hbr.org/1998/01/a-new-mandate-for-human-resources

United States v. Morrison. (2000). 529 U.S. 598. U.S. Const. amend. XIX. Warner, J. (2014). Fact sheet: the women’s leadership gap. Center for American Progress.

Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2014/03/ 07/85457/fact-sheet-the-womens-leadership-gap/

Wildermuth, J. (2018, January 19). Women’s marches get serious about a new political landscape. San Francisco Chronicle, A1, A10.

Woska, W. (2015). Legal and regulatory issues in human resources management. Char- lotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Young, J. (2016). It wasn’t just Phyllis Schlafly who opposed the equal rights amend- ment. History News Network. Retrieved from http://historynewsnetwork.org/ar- ticle/163815

EBSCOhost - printed on 12/7/2021 2:51 AM via UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GLOBAL CAMPUS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use