When a IIS company goes international, one of the likely places it chooses first is the European Union. This paper will outline some differences and similarities be;en the employment laws Of the USA and the EX. with regards to battling the gender and affinity discrimination at a workplace.
Affinity orientation discrimination is the issue that came to light decades later than the gender discrimination, and while the gender anti-discrimination acts were similar nature in both the USA and the CE), the way affinity discrimination was dealt by these two entities differed significantly, as it becomes evident in the relevant part of this paper-?the EX. applied top-down approach in both cases as usual with all of TTS directives while the USA applied top-down approach to battle gender discrimination and bottom-up approach when it came to fighting the affinity discrimination on a state by state bass.
GENDER DISCRIMINATION ACTS: EH VS. USA Women’s suffrage movement has existed in many European countries and in the USA from 19th century. They have achieved suffrage about the same time as well-?end of the 19th century to early 20th century. However, the gender discrimination had not disappeared with full voting rights, and one of the areas of social life where discrimination has been persistent the longest was employment.
Actually, it still persists to this day, as evident by the statistical fact that on average women earn 15% less than men in the LISA (“Bureau of Labor Statistics” 2008). In the EX., meanwhile, the situation has been comparable to that of the USA According to Rheostat of the European Commission, the gender pay gap (JPG) was 16. 4% on average in 2012. It varied greatly, ranging from 2. 5% in Slovenia to almost 30% in Estonia.
This statistics is not very optimistic to women now, but it has been steadily improving since post-WWW period. Such improvement can-?at least arterially-?be attributed to gender anti-discrimination legislation that was implemented in 1 964 in the CICS and in 1975-1976 in the European Economic Community (SEC). We should start with the USA, as it passed the major anti- discrimination legislation in 1964, a decade earlier than the SEC.
The legislation was called the Civil Rights Act Of 1964, and its Title VII was the relevant part in regards to discrimination prohibition in employment Section of Title VII states that: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer – (1) to fail or effuse 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 race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1 964 and its Title VII is by far the most well-known legislation when it comes to gender discrimination provisions, but there was another law that preceded the Civil Rights Act by one year-?Equal Pay Act Of 1963. The scope of its provisions was narrower because it only addressed the gender pay difference.
Section 206(d) of the Equal pay Act states that: (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by eying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions In Europe, gender non-discrimination policy in regards to employment was implemented with the passage of Directive 76/207/SEC. Its purpose was to “to put into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, including promotion, and to vocational training (Article 1). In Article 2 of this Directive, it is stated that “the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status. Finally, according to Article 3 of the Directive, “Application of the principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex in the conditions, including selection criteria, for access to all bobs or posts, whatever the sector or branch of activity, and to all levels of the occupational hierarchy. ” Just as in case with the USA, the broad gender anti- discrimination Directive 76/207/SEC was preceded by a narrower directive that outlined the principle of equal pay for men and women-?Directive 75/117/SEC-?which was passed on February 10, 1975. Article 1 of this directive states that the principle of CEQ al pay “means, for the same work or for work to which equal value is attributed, the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of sex with regard to all aspects and conditions of enumeration. Moreover, Article 3 directs Member States to “abolish all discrimination between men and women arising from laws, regulations or administrative provisions which is contrary to the principle of equal pay. ” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Directive 76/207/SEC were both introduced with the purpose of combating gender inequality at workplace. Indeed, they were really needed at the time-?the gender pay gap in the USA in 1960 was the stunning 40% (National Committee on pay Equity). Since that time, the gender pay gap has fallen to the present 15-16% for both the ELI and the USA but final result of zero gender pay gap has noted been achieved and probably will not be achieved for quite some time.
COMBATING AFFINITY DISCRIMINATION: STATE LAWS VS. ELI-WIDE DIRECTIVE over the last several decades, the Western society in general became more tolerant and more accepting of sexual orientation minorities as well as those whose affinity orientation had not conformed to the societal norms. These groups include gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons. With such acceptance, there grew an awareness of an existing employment discrimination against Hess groups; therefore, the European Union and the USA began to consider ways to deal with such discrimination. However, unlike other anti- discrimination regulations, the approach chosen by the EX. and the LISA significantly differed.
As with other major regulations, the EX. issued a directive that would need to be adopted by Member States in consideration with their existing laws and regulation. If this directive went against some of the existing laws, they would have to be modified or annulled as the EX.-wide directive always had the priority over the national legislative acts. In the LASS, n the other hand, the fight against the affinity orientation discrimination was [partially] implemented in a bottom-up approach-?the states would adopt their own legislation prohibiting workplace discrimination based on affinity orientation. The EX. formalized its stance on the sexual orientation discrimination with the adoption of Directive 2000/78/CE which prohibited discrimination based on numerous factors, including sexual orientation.
Article 1 of this Directive defines its purpose as “to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds Of religion or belief, usability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation” Then, paragraph 1 of Article 2 states that “there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of this Directive defines what constitutes direct and indirect discrimination: For the purposes of paragraph 1: (a) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favorably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1; (b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons Directive 2000/78/CE is not the only act that prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in the ELI, although it is the one that specifically prohibits workplace discrimination. Article 21 of the EX. Charter of Fundamental Rights offers protection against sexual discrimination in general terms by stating hat “Any discrimination based on any ground such as or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. ” Member States had until December 2nd of 2003 to implement this directive by bringing their existing national laws in line with the Directive or by implementing new legislation.
In the USA, there is no federal legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on affinity orientation; however, 21 states passed their own laws that would outlaw either both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination or just sexual orientation discrimination. Among the earlier are California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and District Columbia. Among the latter are Wisconsin, New York and New Hampshire (UCLA “Non-Discrimination Laws: State by State Information -? Map”). For instance, paragraph 12921 of California government code states that “The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination because of a person’s gender, gender identity, gender expression or sexual orientation is a civil right. The fact that there is no action-wide anti-discrimination legislation in regards to sexual orientation in the USA can demonstrate that there is no national consensus on the issue of the LIGHT rights. Certainly, some employers may argue that forcing them to hire LIGHT minorities would violate their right to freedom of religion; therefore, states were left to decide how to balance between these rights. It is easy to see that states historically leaning toward Democrats chose to offer protection against affinity orientation discrimination while states that lean to Republicans gave more preference to individual religious freedoms which mom in conflict with LIGHT anti-discrimination policies.