Discussion Management Law 3
francisgon44
Chapter8GenderDiscrimination.pptxEmployment Law for Business
Chapter 8
Gender Discrimination
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
Because learning changes everything.®
Learning Objectives 1
Review Title VII and other laws relating to gender discrimination.
Understand the background of gender discrimination and how we know it still exists.
Recognize many different ways in which gender discrimination is manifested in the workplace.
Analyze a situation and determine if there are gender issues that may result in employer liability.
2
© McGraw Hill
Learning Objectives 2
Define fetal protection policies, ‘gender-plus’ and pregnancy discrimination, workplace lactation issues, and gender-based logistical concerns.
Differentiate between legal and illegal grooming policies.
List common gender realities at odds with common bases for illegal workplace determinations.
Distinguish between equal pay and comparable worth and discuss proposed legislation.
Note: Reread the Preface regarding the use of gender terminology before reading this chapter.
3
© McGraw Hill
Statutory Bases 1
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII: 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 . . . sex [gender] . . . [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (a).]
Equal Pay Act of 1963: No employer … shall discriminate between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees … at a rate less than the rate at which he plays wages to employees of the opposite sex … for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex … [29 USCA section 206(d).]
4
© McGraw Hill
Statutory Bases 2
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978:
(k) The term “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” includes, but is not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work. . . . [42 U.S.C. § 2000e.]
5
© McGraw Hill
Does it Really Exist? 1
Statistical and incident evidence abounds.
EEOC chair: “Sex discrimination against males and females alike continues to be a problem in the 21st century workplace”.
EEOC 2019: 32.4% of substantive discrimination claims; large majority filed by women.
Gender pay gap persists across trades and professions.
Race and ethnicity ‘intersectionality’ worsens pay equity stats.
6% of S&P 500 CEOs are women.
Walmart saga: 2001 Dukes class action filed; numerous follow-on cases, including EEOC charges filed in 2022.
Note: ‘sex’ amended into Civil Rights Act by an opposing Congressman, hoping to scuttle the entire bill.
Pregnancy expressly added by statute; ‘sex’ includes sexual orientation and trans-gender status per 2020 Bostock case (see CH 10).
6
© McGraw Hill
6
Does it Really Exist? 2
Exhibit 8.1: Gender-Neutral Language?
Attorney Harry McCall, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, “I would like to remind you gentlemen” of a legal point. Associate Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor asked, “Would you like to remind me, too?” McCall later referred to the Court as “Justice O’Connor and gentlemen.” Associate Justice Byron White told McCall, “Just ‘Justices’ would be fine.”*
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, nearly half of states have moved to make the language in their official documents gender-neutral. Changes include replacements such as handwriting for penmanship, first-year student for freshman, and outdoor enthusiast for sportsman. The state of Washington finds it more difficult to replace airman, manhole, and manlock.†
MIT, USC San Diego, and University of Pottsdam linguists and cognitive scientists found that Americans were reluctant to use the word she in the context of a hypothetical president and that reading the word, when it referred to a future president, caused subjects “considerable disruption” in reading time. The study was based on experiments conducted during the run-up to the 2016 election. “People had difficulties reading ‘she’ even if the text had previously used ‘she,’ showing how persistent and deeply ingrained this bias is,” said one of the scientists. Bennett, Jessica, “She’s the Next President. Wait, Did You Read That Right?,” The New York Times (January 24, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/ politics/woman-president-she-her.html.
Source: Newsweek (November 25, 1991), p. 17. † Time (February 18, 2013), p. 12.
7
© McGraw Hill
7
Does it Really Exist? 3
Steady growth in female C E O’s, but 20 of Fortune 500?
Focus of E E O C claims has shifted from hiring discrimination to on-the-job issues.
Equal pay, promotions, harassment, pregnancy leave, lactation policies, caregiver responsibilities, and domestic violence.
Access the text alternative for slide images.
8
© McGraw Hill
8
Gender Stereotypes Persist
Exhibit 8.5: Gender Realities.
Due to the particular historical development of gender in our country, there are many stereotypes about gender that affect how those of a given gender are perceived. Here are some of the stereotypes we have actually heard from managers and supervisors. These stereotypes greatly impact how employees of a given gender are perceived in the workplace. See if any are familiar.
Women are better suited to repetitive, finemotor-skill tasks.
Women are too unstable to handle jobs with a great deal of responsibility or high pressure.
Men make better employees because they are more aggressive.
Men do not do well at jobs requiring nurturing skills such as day care, nursing, elder care, and the like.
When women marry, they will get pregnant and leave their jobs.
When women are criticized at work, they will become angry or cry.
A married woman’s income is only extra family income.
A woman who changes jobs is being disloyal and unstable.
A woman cannot have a job that requires her to have lunch or dinner meetings with men.
Women cannot have jobs that require travel or a good deal of time away from home.
9
© McGraw Hill
9
Gender Discrimination in General 1
Advertising/sourcing.
Sex-specific Application, Interview questions.
Requiring one gender to work different hours or job positions.
Training opportunities.
Discipline, Termination differences.
Some seniority system effects.
Pay and benefits disparities.
Differential conduct standards, express or unconscious.
Not considering legitimate differences between genders (for example, firefighting apparel ‘fit’).
Case: Wedow v. City of Kansas City, Missouri (Disparate Treatment).
10
© McGraw Hill
10
Gender Discrimination in General 2
Exhibit 8.9: Illegal or Unfair?
Several courts have wrestled with the issue of what constitutes gender discrimination under Title VII. One issue that has arisen several times is whether it is illegal gender discrimination under Title VII if a female who is having a relationship with a supervisor receives a job or promotion over a qualified male who applies for the position. In Womack v. Runyon, 77 FEP Cases 769 (11th Cir. 1998), Paul Womack, having excellent credentials, experience, and training, applied for a carrier supervisor position in Waycross, Georgia. He was unanimously selected as the best qualified candidate by a review board, but O. M. Lee, the newly appointed postmaster of Waycross, instead appointed Lee’s paramour, Jeanine Bennett. In rejecting Womack’s Title VII claim of gender discrimination, the court held that Title VII did not cover claims of favoritism, saying that such decisions may not be fair, but they are not illegal under Title VII. According to an EEOC policy guidance, “Title VII does not prohibit . . . preferential treatment based upon consensual romantic relationships. An isolated instance of favoritism toward a paramour . . . may be unfair, but it does not [amount to] discrimination against women or men in violation of Title VII, since both [genders] are disadvantaged for reasons other than their genders.”
Individually ‘small’ workplace incidents can accumulate.
See Exhibit 8.10 ‘Real Life in the Trenches, by firefighter Chela Gutierrez.
11
© McGraw Hill
11
Recognizing Gender Discrimination
Does a facially neutral policy differentially exclude one gender from the workplace or some workplace benefit?
Case: Dothard v. Rawlinson. (Disparate Impact)
Height and weight requirements statistically exclude certain groups.
Do these tests/screening mechanisms directly correlate to ability to do the job? Are they job-related, Validated?
Are there better, less discriminatory requirements that achieve same purpose?
12
© McGraw Hill
12
Real Life in the Trenches, by firefighter Chela Gutierrez 1
Exhibit 8.10: Real Life in the Trenches of Traditionally Male Jobs: Chela Gutierrez, Firefighter.
“Pitch Isn’t the Problem”
In this piece, a female firefighter, shares the frustration of being perceived differently than her male coworkers. At first she thought she was speaking too softly to be heard but came to realize that was not the issue. She learned that as a female firefighter, what she had to say was disregarded or not taken as seriously as input from male firefighters, even when it solved the problem involved. Since her focus was getting the problem taken care of, her fix was simply to let a man deliver the information.
Of the approximately 330 firefighters working at my fire department, only 10 are female. We are never assigned at a station together. They spread us out to be seen at the different stations. So, it’s normal to be the only woman on the fireground.
In recruit school I learned the guys couldn’t hear me on the fireground. I figured it was my pitch, so I used my diaphragm to push my voice out an octave lower when I wanted to be heard in a noisy environment. After recruit school I learned that pitch has nothing to do with it.
13
© McGraw Hill
13
Real Life in the Trenches, by firefighter Chela Gutierrez 2
Exhibit 8.10: Real Life in the Trenches of Traditionally Male Jobs: Chela Gutierrez, Firefighter.
When I was the driver of Engine 9, we responded to the smell of gas outside a structure. We arrived on scene with another engine company and a truck company—a total of 10 firefighters. A diverse group of men and me. The only woman. Each company investigated and reported to the captain their findings.
I noticed a patch of dead grass everyone walked over. It had a concrete island curb, like there may have been a gas station there years ago. I figured there may be gas left in the underground tanks. Just like the men, I reported my observations to the captain.
He said nothing.
Other firefighters gave their reports, were acknowledged, and were sent on another task.
I reported it to him again, and nothing. It was like he couldn’t hear me. Since I was the only odd thing in the mix, I pulled one of the firefighters to the side, showed him what I saw, and told him to go tell the captain.
I watched from the sideline as the captain listened intently, looked at the spot, and got everybody focused on that area. Chela Gutierrez.
14
© McGraw Hill
14
‘Romantic Favoritism’
Exhibit 8.9: Illegal or Unfair?
Several courts have wrestled with the issue of what constitutes gender discrimination under Title VII. One issue that has arisen several times is whether it is illegal gender discrimination under Title VII if a female who is having a relationship with a supervisor receives a job or promotion over a qualified male who applies for the position. In Womack v. Runyon, 77 FEP Cases 769 (11th Cir. 1998), Paul Womack, having excellent credentials, experience, and training, applied for a carrier supervisor position in Waycross, Georgia. He was unanimously selected as the best qualified candidate by a review board, but O. M. Lee, the newly appointed postmaster of Waycross, instead appointed Lee’s paramour, Jeanine Bennett. In rejecting Womack’s Title VII claim of gender discrimination, the court held that Title VII did not cover claims of favoritism, saying that such decisions may not be fair, but they are not illegal under Title VII. According to an EEOC policy guidance, “Title VII does not prohibit . . . preferential treatment based upon consensual romantic relationships. An isolated instance of favoritism toward a paramour . . . may be unfair, but it does not [amount to] discrimination against women or men in violation of Title VII, since both [genders] are disadvantaged for reasons other than their genders.
15
© McGraw Hill
15
“Gender-Plus” Discrimination
“Gender-plus” discrimination: Employment discrimination based on gender and some other factor such as marital status or children.
Males may not be subject to the same limitations.
Case: Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.
Employer had a policy of not hiring women with preschool-aged children for certain jobs with variable schedules.
Domestic duties assumption basis.
Court found discrimination, but mused whether employer might have claimed a BFOQ exception. See Justice Marshall’s response in his Concurring Opinion, next slide.
16
© McGraw Hill
16
Aside: Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp Marshall’s powerful concurring opinion
“I cannot agree with the Court's indication that a ’bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of’ Martin Marietta’s business could be established by a showing that some women, even the vast majority, with pre-school-age children have family responsibilities that interfere with job performance and that men do not usually have such responsibilities.
Certainly, an employer can require that all of his employees, both men and women, meet minimum performance standards, and he can try to ensure compliance by requiring parents, both mothers and fathers, to provide for the care of their children so that job performance is not interfered with.
But the Court suggests that it would not require such uniform standards. I fear that, in this case, where the issue is not squarely before us, the Court has fallen into the trap of assuming that the Act permits ancient canards about the proper role of women to be a basis for discrimination. Congress, however, sought just the opposite result.”
Note: If you ever needed a demonstration of why ‘diversity’ of perspectives can be important, here it is. Marshall was the first and only minority Justice at the time of this case and differentially sensitive to discrimination’s impacts. BFOQ claims have found no traction in similar, later cases.
17
© McGraw Hill
17
Gender Stereotyping 1
Gender stereotypes: The assumption that most or all members of a particular gender must act a certain way.
Workplace decisions based on stereotypes are prohibited by Title VII.
Case: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
Female candidate denied partnership because of aggressive, typically ‘male’ personality and actions.
Would she have qualified if she had met the female stereotype?
Even supporters considered her a "lady partner" candidate – company needed one set of criteria for one kind of partnership.
Echoes of case in EEOC approach to ‘sex’ in sexual orientation/transgender cases (chapter 10).
18
© McGraw Hill
18
Gender Stereotyping 2, further examples
Exhibit 8.13: Stereotypes.
Do any of the following stereotypes, taken from actual cases, sound familiar? Even though women may have come a long way, such ideas are still startlingly omnipresent in the workplace. Just because you haven’t heard them doesn’t mean they are not operating. Keep in mind that these are taken from actual workplace situations.
Women being included in workplace events are a “buzz kill.”
Employer would not consider “some woman” for the position, questioned applicant about future pregnancy plans, and asked whether her husband would object to her “running around the country with men.”
Women are not aggressive enough for certain jobs.
A lesser job position was sufficient for women and no woman would be named to the higher position.
Men are the family breadwinner.
Once a woman gets married, she will get pregnant.
Once a woman goes on maternity leave, she will not return to work.
Women cannot take the pressure necessary for certain jobs.
If a woman is away from her desk, she is in the bathroom; the man is elsewhere talking business to colleagues.
Women are unstable and not equipped for important positions because they are too hormonal or have a menstrual period.
19
© McGraw Hill
19
Grooming Codes
Title VII does not prohibit an employer from using gender as a basis for reasonable grooming codes.
Needn’t be identical, if generally similar.
Employer discretion: grooming codes rarely affect opportunity.
Codes that do affect opportunity (salesmen: suits, saleswomen: smocks) may be challenged.
Scenario 2.
Gender-based grooming policy that subjects only one gender to different conditions of employment would not be allowed.
Jespersen v. Harrah’s case may be an outlier.
Note: ‘CROWN’ Acts in various states outlaw restrictions on ‘natural’ hairstyles.
20
© McGraw Hill
20
Customer or Employee Preferences; Application of Title VII outside US
Customer or co-worker preferences not a legitimate and protected reason to treat otherwise-qualified employees differently based on gender.
The Hooters situation (Scenario 2) – legal defiance in favor of marketing to a hormonal male demographic. (Male students invited to apply there and report back to us.)
Note: policy would be defensible in adult entertainment context; Hooter’s calls itself a ‘family restaurant’ (with crayons, even), Marketing effect endures (every semester more Q’s).
1991 amendment to Title VII – Application outside US.
Title VII applies to U.S. citizens employed by American-owned or -controlled companies doing business outside the United States (unless local law directly forbids it).
21
© McGraw Hill
21
Logistical Considerations
Employers may not forgo hiring those of a certain gender because of logistical issues unless it involves an unreasonable financial burden.
Examples:
Female sports reporters going into male athletes’ locker rooms (and vice versa).
Female firefighters sleeping at a fire station.
Lack of bathrooms at a construction site, case: Lynch v. Freeman.
Breast-feeding or expressing milk at work.
ACA/Obamacare requires 50+ FTE employers to provide reasonable and private non-restroom facilities.
Some state laws go further (CA) Check local requirements.
22
© McGraw Hill
22
Equal Pay and Comparable Worth 1
Statutory basis: (1) No employer . . . shall discriminate between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees . . . at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex . . . for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex. . . . [Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.A § 206(d).]
The Equal Pay Act (EPA) overlaps with Title VII’s general terms outlawing discrimination in employment based on gender.
EPA concerns the practical content of the job, not title or description, but has been ineffective closing wage gap.
Recent state laws put burden on employer to justify differences (CA).
23
© McGraw Hill
23
Equal Pay and Comparable Worth 2
© McGraw Hill
24
Equal Pay and Comparable Worth 3
Title VII’s Bennett Amendment:
Exceptions permitted by the E P A (jobs compared in a Title VII unequal pay action need not be substantially equal).
Comparable worth: Title VII action for pay discrimination based on gender.
Jobs held mostly by women are compared with comparable jobs held mostly by men.
Pay is compared to determine if there is gender discrimination.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: extends statute of limitations period with each discriminatory paycheck.
Note: Since 2017, 34 states and localities have banned the use of prior salary history in determining compensation. Check local laws.
25
© McGraw Hill
25
Equal Pay and Comparable Worth 4
Exhibit 8.17: Not All Women Are Paid Less . . . But What a Choice.
According to a study of 2008 census data by Reach Advisors, single, childless women in their twenties working full-time who live in 39 out of the 50 biggest cities in the United States earn more than comparable men, and they match them in 8 other cities. Women 22 to 30 with no husband or children earn a median of $27,000 per year. This is 8 percent more than comparable men in the top 366 metropolitan areas. In Atlanta the difference is most pronounced, with women earning 21 percent more than comparable men. Women in their twenties who do not meet these criteria earn only 90 percent of what men do. [Notice the difference in the 90 percent figure and the 75–80 percent earnings gap figure given earlier in the chapter. The overall figure includes all women, not just those in their twenties, and thus is lower.] Researchers believe the shift is because women go to college in bigger numbers. Three-fourths of women go to college from high school, but only two-thirds of men do. In addition, women are one and a half times more likely to go on to graduate school. It is also due to the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs for men who did not go to college.
The trend is most apparent in cities with more than a 50 percent population of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups since Black and Hispanic women are more than twice as likely as their male counterparts to earn college degrees. The trend has interesting implications for society and the economy. Not only are male-oriented businesses such as cars and sporting goods increasingly targeting women, but builders who expected this generation to drive demand for apartments are disappointed since these women increasingly live at home with their parents.
Source: Agustin, Heidi, Citytowninfo.com (September 2, 2010), https://www.citytowninfo.com/ career-and-education-news/articles/salaries-for-youngwomen-exceed-male-counterparts-10090201.
Note: Gender discrimination and Artificial Intelligence: strong growth in use of HR technology, including AI. EEOC Concern for discriminatory implications as apps may ‘inherit’ biases of their programmers. If discrimination occurs, AI does not insulate employer from potential liability.
26
© McGraw Hill
26
Gender as a BFOQ
Title VII permits gender to be used as a bona fide occupational qualification under certain limited circumstances (for example, theatrical roles).
EEOC hostility to ‘legalized discrimination’ - guidelines for gender BFOQ are very strict.
Agency would limit to sperm donors or wet nurses.
EEOC v. Women’s Workout World illustrates tension between lingering gender-based privacy issues/customer preferences and equal opportunity.
BFOQ has been found by courts in limited circumstances (for example, counselors at in-patient recovery center for victims of domestic abuse).
27
© McGraw Hill
27
Pregnancy Discrimination
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
Prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
Enacted following Supreme Court’s conclusion that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not gender discrimination under Title VII.
Two years later Congress passed the PDA, amending Title VII to expressly include pregnancy.
EEOC: 182% increase in the filing of pregnancy discrimination charges over the past 10 years.
Case: Young v. UPS (2015)
Extension of ‘reasonable accommodation’ concept to assist pregnant employees, if company’s policies include other similar temporary disabilities.
28
© McGraw Hill
28
Fetal Protection Policies
Fetal protection policies: Policies an employer institutes to protect the fetus or the reproductive capacity of employees.
Limit or prohibit employees from performing certain jobs or working in certain areas.
If health effects extend to both sexes, then limitation of policies to only fertile females is discriminatory.
For example, UAW v. Johnson Controls.
29
© McGraw Hill
29
Management Tips
As you have seen from the chapter, gender discrimination can manifest itself in many forms, some of which may take the employer by surprise. Following these tips can help keep the surprises to a minimum:
Let all employees know from the beginning that gender bias in the workplace will not be tolerated in any way. Give them examples of unacceptable behavior.
Back up the strong gender message with appropriate enforcement as necessary.
Take employee claims of gender discrimination or bias seriously and make adjustments as necessary.
Promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints, keeping privacy issues in mind.
Don’t go overboard in responding to offenses substantiated by investigation. Make sure the “punishment fits the crime.”
Conduct periodic training to keep communication lines open and to act as an ongoing reminder of the employer’s antibias policy.
Conduct periodic audits to make sure gender is not adversely affecting hiring, promotion, and raises.
Review workplace policies to make sure there are no hidden policies or practices that could more adversely impact one gender than another.
In dealing with gender issues, keep in mind that none of the actions need make the workplace stilted and formal. Employees can respect each other without discriminating against each other.
30
© McGraw Hill
30
Chapter Summary
Discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal and not in keeping with good business practices of efficiency, maximizing resources, and avoiding unnecessary liability.
Gender discrimination has many manifestations, including discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, training, pregnancy, lactation issues, fetal protection policies, client preferences, dress codes, and child care leave.
In determining whether employment policies are gender biased, look at the obvious, but also look at the subtle bias that may arise from seemingly neutral policies adversely impacting a given gender, such as height and weight requirements. Both types of discrimination are illegal.
Where employees must be treated differently, ensure that the basis for differentiation is grounded in factors not gender based but, instead, that address the actual limitation of the employee’s or applicant’s qualifications.
Dress codes are not prohibited under Title VII, but dress code differences based on gender should be reasonable and not based on limiting stereotypical ideas about gender.
Logistical concerns of bathrooms, lactation rooms, and other such matters should be handled in a way that does not overly burden or unnecessarily exclude any employees.
Under the PDA, employers must treat a pregnant employee who is able to perform the job just as they treat any other employee with a short-term disability.
Because of health and other considerations, an employer may use pregnancy as a BFOQ and may have policies excluding or limiting pregnant employees if there is a reasonable business justification for such policies.
If there are legitimate bases for treating pregnant employees differently, an employer has ample flexibility to make necessary decisions.
Outmoded ideas regarding pregnant employees may not be the basis of denying them equal employment opportunities.
Fetal protection policies may not operate to discriminate against employees and fail to extend to them equal employment opportunities.
Sirikorn thamniyom/Shutterstock
31
© McGraw Hill
31
End of Main Content
© McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.
Because learning changes everything.®
www.mheducation.com
32
accessibility Content: Text Alternatives for Images
33
© McGraw Hill
Does it Really Exist? 3 – Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
The horizontal axis represents the years, ranging from 1995 to 2013, marked in increments of one year. The vertical axis represents the number of female C E O’s. The data points are as follows: (1996: 1); (1997: 2); (1998: 2); (1999: 2); (2000: 2); (2001: 4); (2002: 6); (2003: 7); (2004: 8); (2005: 9); (2006: 10); (2007: 12); (2008: 12); (2009: 15); (2010: 15); (2011: 12); (2012: 18); (2013: 20). The values are estimated.
Return to parent-slide containing images.
34
© McGraw Hill
Equal Pay and Comparable Worth 2 – Text Alternative
Return to parent-slide containing images.
The horizontal axis represents states, while the vertical axis represents percentages. The legends are Overall, White women, Asian women, Black women, and Hispanic women.
The given data is as follows: Los Angeles, CA: 90%. Miami, FL: 110%. Tampa, FL: 88%. San Diego, CA: 92%. San Antonio, TX: 110%. Orlando, FL: 88%. Dallas, TX: 95%. Phoenix, AZ: 102%. Riverside, CA: 110%. Houston, TX: 92%. New York, NY: 82%. Atlanta, GA: 81%. Washington, DC: 85%. Baltimore, MD: 82%. Philadelphia, PA: 82%. Charlotte, NC: 80%. Minneapolis, MN: 82%. Denver, CO: 81%. Portland, OR: 81%. Saint Louis, MO: 90%. Chicago, IL: 95%. Boston, MA: 95%. San Francisco, CA: 82%. Detroit, MI: 100%. and Seattle, WA: 78%.
The given data with respect to each state is as follows: Los Angeles: Hispanic women: 55%; Black women: 30%; White women: 2%; Asian women: 5%. Miami, FL: Hispanic women: 70%; Black women: 1%; White women: 10%; Asian women: 20%; Overall: 1%. Tampa, FL: Hispanic women: 65%; Black women: 10%; White women: 12%; Asian women: 1%; Overall: 1%. San Diego, CA: Hispanic women: 62%; Black women: 5%; White women: 20%; Asian women: 3%; Overall: 2%. San Antonio, TX: Hispanic women: 70%; Black women: 1%; White women: 10%; Asian women: 3%; Overall: 1%. Orlando, FL: Hispanic women: 1%; Black women: 60%; White women: 20%; Asian women: 5%; Overall: 1%. Dallas, TX: Hispanic women: 58%; Black women: 20%; White women: 6%; Asian women: 6%; Overall: 1%. Phoenix, AZ: Hispanic women: 60%; Black women: 15%; White women: 5%; Asian women: 20%; Overall: 1%. Riverside, CA: Hispanic women: 60%; Black women: 18%; White women: 1%; Asian women: 20%; Overall: 2%. Houston, TX: Hispanic women: 57%; Black women: 20%; White women: 3%; Asian women: 12%; Overall: 1%. New York, NY: Hispanic women: 50%; Black women: 10%; White women: 2%; Asian women: 20%; Overall: 1%. Atlanta, GA: Hispanic women: 49%; Black women: 18%; White women: 3%; Asian women: 20%; Overall: 1%. Washington, DC: Hispanic women: 40%; Black women: 25%; White women: 3%; Asian women: 10%; Overall: 5%. Baltimore, MD: Hispanic women: 57%; Black women: 7%; White women: 20%; Asian women: 1%; Overall: 1%. Philadelphia, PA: Hispanic women: 57%; Black women: 10%; White women: 2%; Asian women: 18%; Overall: 1%. Charlotte, NC: Hispanic women: 50%; Black women: 15%; White women: 1%; Asian women: 15%; Overall: 1%. Minneapolis, MN: Hispanic women: 52%; Black women: 3%; White women: 7%; Asian women: 7%; Overall: 2%. Denver, CO: Hispanic women: 58%; Black women: 5%; White women: 10%; Asian women: 2%. Portland, OR: Hispanic women: 60%; Black women: 2%; White women: 17%; Asian women: 18%; Overall: 1%. Saint Louis, MO: Hispanic women: 5%; Black women: 55%; White women: 17%; Asian women: 12%; Overall: 1%. Chicago, IL: Hispanic women: 52%; Black women: 8%; White women: 12%; Asian women: 10%; Overall: 1%. Boston, MA: Hispanic women: 52%; Black women: 3%; White women: 1%; Asian women: 10%; Overall: 20%. San Francisco, CA: Hispanic women: 48%; Black women: 10%; White women: 10%; Asian women: 20%; Overall: 2%. Detroit, MI: Hispanic women: 50%; Black women: 5%; White women: 1%; Asian women: 22%; Overall: 8%. Seattle, WA: Hispanic women: 52%; Black women: 5%; White women: 1%; Asian women: 20%; Overall: 1%.
The values are estimated.
The following note is specified below the graph: The overall gender gap pay ratio compares the median annual earnings of full-time, year-round female workers to male workers. The gender pay gap in dollars is the difference between median annual earnings for those two groups. Gender pay gap ratios for women self-identifying in particular racial and ethnic groups compare median annual earnings for full-time, year-round female workers in those groups to full-time, year-round white male workers.
Return to parent-slide containing images.
35
© McGraw Hill
