Barbara, who is just returning to work from maternity leave, is requesting her supervisor for evenly spaced breaks and a consistent lunch hour break so that she can milk for the baby and feed her baby at an adjacent day care center. The question is whether Barbara is entitled to this provision. If the business can accommodate these requests, the manager is obliged to make the working conditions comfortable for Barbara to allow her to carry out her work and childrearing roles smoothly. Genuine differences between men and women have been used to justify different treatment, which is considered to be different from stereotyping (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 168). The childbearing role has been used for many years to discriminate women in the economic sector. The sex discrimination law raises various concerns as to the likelihood of the law to reduce the disadvantages that face women due to their biological characteristics. A policy that intended to relieve pregnant teachers from their duties from their fourth month during pregnancy, and offer them a maternity leave until the baby was three months old was considered invalid as the policy considered all pregnant women incapable of completing their roles. The state, however, allowed these provisions to individual women who could not effectively complete their roles in their pregnant state. The exclusion of pregnant women from their roles is considered a disability and not a sex-based exclusion.
If the supervising manager allows this to happen, whether another mother is entitled to the same provision is another concern. Each employee at the workplace should be treated as an individual and not as a group. These legislations are meant to accommodate women and not to discriminate them. The intention of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act/ PDA is to provide women with equal treatment and not special treatment (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 169). Expectant mothers are granted leave and reinstatement after their maternity leave. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act / FEHA was amended in 1978 to accommodate employers to provide workers on leave with reinstatement to a similar position unless business does not allow for this provision. In case the employer is not in a position to do so, the employer should make an effort in good faith to place the individual in a substantially similar position. The statute does not require the employer to provide the employee with a paid leave, but the employee has a qualified right to reinstatement. “By requiring employers to reinstate women after a reasonable pregnant disability leave, this law ensures that they will not lose their jobs on account of pregnancy disability” (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 172). In the case between Troupe Vs. May Department Stores Co., Troupe sued her employer for failing to reinstate her following her maternity leave. The court ruled in the favor of May Department Stores Co., since the court could not find substantial evidence that her employer refused to reinstate her on purpose. The law allows for both men and women to have families without losing their employment. Treating individuals who are different alike is considered unfair (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 188). The sex-specific variance should, however, not be used to discriminate women since it does not interfere with a woman’s innate abilities but only their physical abilities temporarily. Measures to enable women to continue working in their previous position should be taken, but these measures should be based on medical requirements and not on gender-based stereotypes. These legislations encourage women to carry out their childbearing and rearing roles as well as their role as a worker.
This arrangement is likely to interfere with the manager’s ability to attend a management meeting while at the same raising the question of fairness to other employees. If making such accommodations interferes with the business operations at the workplace, the supervising manager is not obliged to grant such request to employees. The Constitution hopes to provide women with working conditions which are close to those of their spouses as possible . There are other concerns that the PDA is considered as special treatment and not equal. Special attention was paid to the rules that intended to get rid of the requirements which are considered to eliminate the disadvantages that are associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Supporters of the special treatment argued that treating women in a neutral manner is considered unfair since they are faced with different circumstances. Supporters of the equal treatment argument argue that treating women in a special manner result in generalizations and stereotypes. Treating pregnancy as a unique situation will subject women to both favorable and unfavorable conditions . This will hinder women from being proactive even when they are in a position to continue with their roles due to generalizations. While equal treatment is protective of women, special treatment compromises their opportunities at the workplace. The PDA does not wish to treat pregnant women or mothers in a worse or special treatment. The special treatment suggests that generalizations based on how mothers and expectant mothers behave, while in essence, individual women have different working capabilities. According to the American with Disability Act/ ADA, employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodations which eliminate hardships for the employee. The act continues to state that pregnancy is not considered as a disability since it is a short-term condition. The reason for the exclusion is to change the stereotype associated with the term disability (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 187). The PDA only allows for accommodations if they fit those with similar abilities or inabilities to work. The PDA is effective if it treats mothers and pregnant women similarly to those injured off the job. Every person is entitled to the right to participate in any form of lawful employment, both men, and women. Applying similar rules to men and women will result in unequal outcomes (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 190). “Pregnancy differs from sex in that pregnancy is an episodic occurrence and not an immutable trait” (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 174).
A women’s course professor has continued to refuse to enroll male students in her women’s ethics course since she believes that the male students inhibit the participation of the female students. As an alternative for the male students, she conducts one on one tutorials for the male students. A male student recently sued the professor under Title IX and Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The female professor should win the case. Students can be discriminated on the basis of gender if the law intends to directly assist members of the group which is burdened, women or female students fall under the disadvantaged gender in this scenario. Under Title IX of the United States department of education of 2006, students can be discriminated from a program provided that there is a substantial coeducational program that is of equal measure for the excluded sex (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 221). Sex-based differences remain highly significant in group-based differences. The separate but equal classroom has brought different sentiments over the years. This is an issue closely linked to gender equality and what treatment is fair for both genders. Defenders of expanded education programs have given the reason that these programs enable women to become better companions for their male counterparts (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 168).
Critics of the program have accused the system of segregating certain occupations such as the nursing profession for women. They continue to argue that the sex-segregated schools were a result of the assumption in the past that female students did not require formal education and instead they were only given informal education such as household arts. One such institution was the female nursing institutions which often discriminated male students. The Supreme Court later ruled this unconstitutional on grounds that the practice was based on stereotypes. However, this is not to say that the court deemed all single sex schools unconstitutional. The Supreme Court justified those which were structured with the intention of directly assisting a gender which was disadvantaged (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 205). Judge Powell further defended the sex-segregated institutions with the argument that these institutions protected women from the distraction that was associated with romantic relationships in mixed schools. By nature, women will spend more time grooming themselves for their male counterparts.
Other arguments include the common belief that women do not share the same abilities, interest and learning styles with their male counterparts, which educators should pay special attention to. Women have also been excluded from institutions such as military institutions. In a case between the United States and Virginia Military Institute/ VMI which was exclusive for male students, the court ruled that the institution should allow female students who wished to benefit from the opportunities at the college with an equal chance. As a result, VMI came up with a parallel coeducation center, Mary Baldwin VWIL program for female students or risk lose funding from the state. The equal protection act prevents these institutions from excluding women from serving in the military. The clause provides both female and male students equal opportunities for acquiring the benefits that arise from attending military institutions together with other students which were considered to be exclusive for their male counterparts (Bartlett et al.,, 2014, p. 207). These institutions can open parallel programs to avoid violating the equal rights clause.
Sex-based generalizations should, however, not be used to deny students opportunities. Exceptions are only made when such exclusions are introduced to provide women with equal opportunities, and not to enhance the inferiority of women as was the case in the past. “But such classifications may not be used, as they once were to create or perpetuate the legal, social and economic inferiority of women” (Bartlett et al., 2014, p. 208). These exclusions must be backed up with justifications and should not be made on rationalizations. The coeducation program is an attempt by educators to accommodate the needs of both genders in institutions. While women thrive in an atmosphere of cooperativeness, their male counterparts tend to thrive in an atmosphere of adversities (Bartlett et al.,, 2014, p. 212). The education sector is not a one size fits all kind of business, and therefore adjustments should be made to accommodate women who have the will and unique capacity to participate in activities that are considered more masculine such as military services. The goal of these legislations is to ensure that the American citizens both men and women are allowed the chance to participate fully in serving their country. Claims that allowing women to serve will interfere with the solidarity in service have since been proved to be ungrounded. Single-sex education at the elementary and secondary level are on the rise due to the recent no child left behind act . Boys and girls are allowed to go to separate schools which are known to provide similar opportunities. Institutions of higher education are however abandoning the sex-segregated institutions to accommodate both genders, while those which cannot do so are allowed to come up with parallel coeducation centers for the excluded group.
References
Bartlett, K. T., Rhode, D. L., Grossman, J. L., & Buchalter, S. L. (2014). Gender law and policy. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
