Skip to contentNational Women's Law Center

Lauren Hartz, Intern

My Take

New Report Spotlights Low Pay, Difficult Work Schedules, and Unaffordable Child Care for Moms in the Restaurant Industry

Posted by | Posted on: July 09, 2013 at 03:19 pm

As the single mother of two young children, Losia Nyankale’s job is what keeps her family afloat. But between earning low wages and having no paid sick days, Losia is just one child care emergency away from losing her job. This pressure made it difficult for Losia to care for her mother when she suffered a stroke, and it forced Losia to return to work immediately after the birth of her second child—despite her doctor’s orders. Losia works long hours to be able to afford her basic living expenses and child care. And she often finds herself in an all-too familiar bind: if she picks up more shifts to earn a better living, the child care costs that she can barely afford now will rise, and she’ll have even less time with her family. Losia would like to go back to school to improve her situation, but the combination of low wages, lack of paid sick days, and lack of affordable child care, keep that dream from coming true for now.

For many years Teresa worked on call as a banquet server and had an extremely difficult time arranging child care at the last minute for her children because of her unpredictable schedule. She found herself turning down jobs or quitting jobs where she wasn’t able to arrange child care, even though she needed the income badly. Like Losia, Teresa was a single mom who often didn’t earn enough money to pay for care.

Read more...

Real Benefits for Women Now That DOMA Has Been Struck Down!

Today, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which provided that only a marriage between a man and woman would be recognized under federal law. The Court found that this provision of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. This decision is historic in its recognition that the Constitution provides important protection against discrimination against same-sex relationships. 

Moreover, this ruling will have a huge practical impact, providing access to important benefits previously denied to same-sex couples. As the Court wrote, "By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound." The practical impact of this victory is particularly significant for women. Women make up about 53% of LGBT adults and 51% of same-sex couples, and women in same-sex couples are more likely than men to marry their partners. In fact, the Williams Institute found that 62% of same-sex couples who married or acquired some other type of formal legal status were female, in the eight states for which data is available. 

Because women are more likely than men to be poor, female same-sex couples are at particular risk of financial instability.

Read more...

Women Need Not Apply: EEOC Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Performance Food Group

Posted by Lauren Hartz, Intern | Posted on: June 20, 2013 at 10:35 am

Something may be rotten at Performance Food Group. 

This week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a major lawsuit against a national food distributor for pattern or practice gender discrimination. According to the complaint, Performance Food Group (PFG) has a long history of refusing to hire women for several "operative positions" at its distribution facilities. The EEOC alleges that women have been systematically excluded from warehouse jobs like driver, forklift operator, mechanic, meat packer, and many others. 

The complaint details blatant and pervasive discrimination throughout the company, where gender discrimination was standard operating procedure in hiring decisions. High-ranking company officials openly declared their preference for male employees, stating that women were not capable of warehouse work and pressuring supervisors to fire their female employees. According to the complaint, one vice president asked, "Why would we ever waste our time bringing in females?" And a warehouse selector told a female applicant point-blank that the company "would not hire female drivers." 

Read more...

High Court Strikes Down Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Law, Providing Important Protection for Voters

Posted by Lauren Hartz, Intern | Posted on: June 18, 2013 at 10:50 am

It’s a good week for residents of Arizona!

Just a few days ago, the Arizona state legislature passed Governor Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion proposal, bringing health care coverage to 238,000 low-income Arizonans.

And yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion that will make it easier for Arizonans to exercise their right to vote.

This morning the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. In this closely-watched case, Arizona residents and civil rights groups challenged a state law that made it harder to vote. The controversial law put the burden on would-be voters to affirmatively prove their U.S. citizenship in order to register.

This law and others like it are serious threats to our right to vote, and they are especially harmful to women voters. Recent studies show that these restrictive voter registration laws disproportionately affect women, who often lack proof of citizenship in their current legal names. Only 66% of voting-age women with access to documents proving citizenship have documents in their current legal names, and only 48% of these women can show birth certificates with their current legal names [PDF]. Women also make up the majority of college students and senior citizens – both populations that are less likely to have qualifying forms of identification. Restrictive voting laws like Arizona’s require these women to jump through hoops in order to register, expending time and money to obtain the necessary documentation.

Read more...