Christmas in July! Get $20 off professional membership with promo code JULY17 thru 7/31 >>>
Make sure supervisors know these common justifications for harassment are unacceptable.
Is your employee handbook ready for the changing world of work? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
60+ new SHRM Seminar dates in 10 U.S. cities and virtually.
Register for one or both and join us for affordable, effective professional development. August 7 & 8 in Cleveland, Ohio.
The guiding rule-of-thumb to avoid discriminating against employees with caregiving responsibilities: Treat them as you would employees without such responsibilities.
That was the message for employers during the March 11, 2008, session, “Family Responsibilities Discrimination—See Dick and Jane Sue,” at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) 25th annual
Employment Law & Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C.
Family responsibilities discrimination (FRD) is employment discrimination based on stereotypes, explained speaker and attorney Joseph L. Beachboard, who is with the California-based law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
It’s discrimination even when there is no hostile intent, such as not sending a pregnant employee on travel-related work out of concern for her health, he added.
Beachboard used case law to illustrate the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recently issued enforcement guidance that addressed unlawful disparate treatment of employees who have caregiving responsibilities.
“Changing workplace demographics, including women’s increased participation in the labor force,” according to the EEOC guidance, “have created the potential for greater discrimination against working parents and others with care-giving responsibilities.”
Its guidance, issued May 23, 2007, was intended to address the potential for greater discrimination against working parents and others with caregiving responsibilities, including members of the “sandwich generation,” those who take care of children as well as aging parents, according to Beachboard.
Family responsibility discrimination occurs when personnel action is taken because of a stereotype, based on an employee’s caregiver role, that the employee cannot be both a good caregiver and a good worker, he said. The wrongful assumption is that taking care of another person must interfere with job performance.
FRD suits tend to be filed by women (92 percent), by those in the service industry (51 percent) and by workers in nonprofessional occupations (62 percent), Beachboard said, citing findings from a 2006 paper
Litigating the Maternal Wall: U.S. Lawsuits Charging Discrimination Against Workers with Family Responsibilities from the Center for WorkLife Law.
From 1996 to 2005, according to that paper, the number of FRD cases filed grew nearly 400 percent—from 97 cases to 481. The Midwest and East Coast have seen the greatest number of FRD lawsuits, and small local businesses make up the largest component of companies who are sued for family responsibility discrimination, Beachboard said.
Family responsibility discrimination can take a number of forms, he told SHRM members:
Employers can avoid stepping into the FRD minefield, Beachboard said, by:
Kathy Gurchiek is associate editor for HR News. She can be reached at
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
CA Resources at Your Fingertips
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies
[/_catalogs/masterpage/SHRMCore/Main.master][Title][SHRM Online - Society for Human Resource Management]