There has been a "flood" of workplace discrimination lawsuits filed since the mid-1990s because of "family care-giving obligations," including pregnancy and maternal care, the New York Times Magazine reports. According to the Times Magazine, family care discrimination lawsuits claiming workplace discrimination "were rare" until recently, in part because employers "could often get away with it." The 1993 Family Medical Leave Act guarantees workers some time off after childbirth, as well as for serious health problems and care for a sick family member. However, the law's "scope" is "limited," and it does not cover companies with fewer than 50 employees, the Times Magazine reports.

According to the Times Magazine, "what constitutes discrimination in the eyes of the law is changing." The number of workers since the mid-1990s who have filed suit against their employers for alleged discrimination related to family obligations -- such as becoming pregnant or needing to care for a sick child or relative -- has increased by more than 300%. The workers filing the claims have "invoked a dizzying array of laws to prove they were mistreated," including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and various state and local regulations. Women filed four-fifths of the more than 1,150 lawsuits. More than half of the plaintiffs in the suits won their cases, compared with a success rate of less than 20% among plaintiffs who filed "more conventional employment discrimination cases," according to the Times Magazine.

The increase in lawsuits has coincided with new research studying the wage gap between mothers and the rest of the work force. According to results of a study published in the May 2007 issue of the American Journal of Sociology, mothers were consistently viewed as "less competent and less committed and were held to higher performance and punctuality standards" than other employees, the Times Magazine reports. The mothers in the survey also were 79% less likely to be hired and, if hired, were offered a starting salary of $11,000 lower than women without children, the Times Magazine reports. In addition, lawyers have said that although some employers might tolerate or welcome an employee who has one child, some firms will "balk when discovering" the woman has become pregnant again.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April held a hearing during which some experts portrayed "unflattering comparisons" between benefits and support for working families in the U.S. and those in Europe, according to the Times Magazine. Zachery Fasman -- a partner at the law firm Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker -- at the hearing said that family care discrimination lawsuits could be used to force companies to alter valid business practices, such as mandatory overtime and strict attendance rules. EEOC in May issued enforcement guidelines that detail the "myriad situations" that are barred under existing law, the Times Magazine reports. The guidelines also call on companies "to make it easier for all workers ... to balance work and personal responsibilities" (Press, New York Times, 7/29).

Reprinted with kind permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.