Discrimination Leveled Against American Express

Two women in New Jersey have filed sex discrimination charges against American Express Financial Advisors, already facing similar charges by four women in Minnesota.

Like the women in Minnesota, the two New Jersey women claim that male advisors were given accounts and leads that were not given to female advisors. The supervisor of one of the women, Liz Bradler, took her to lunch and tried to persuade her to let him come to her apartment. When she refused, he said "Don't you want any accounts?"

Both women complained to human resources about their discriminatory treatment, but their complaints were ignored.

Lawyers representing the women have spoken with women from other states as well, and believe that more charges in different states will be filed soon.

"The experiences of these women are typical of how American Express Financial Services management has viewed women as not being as capable as men," said the women's attorney, Susan Stokes.

The women are represented both by Sprenger & Lang, which also has offices in Washington, D.C., and Miller-O'Brien-Bloom, an employment litigation firm in Minneapolis.

Women's Group Weighs in at Supreme Court

Anita K. Blair, president of the Independent Women's Forum, called the federal 'gender crimes' provisions of the Violence Against Women Act unconstitutional and charged they added to the victims' suffering.

In one of the most controversial cases (U.S. vs. Morrison) to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years, the justices must decide whether Congress overstepped its authority in 1994 when it passed the Violence Against Women Act. A U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the lawsuit, saying Congress' power to regulate commerce and ensure equal protection did not authorize it to enact such a law.

In October 1994, Virginia Tech student Christy Brzonkala went to a party. While there, she alleges, two Virginia Tech football players, Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, raped her in a dormitory room. Brzonkala fell into a deep depression and did not report the incident until February 1995.

A grand jury declined to indict the two football players in April 1996, ending the threat of criminal prosecution after a state investigation. Morrison said that what happened between him and Brzonkala was consensual.

Brzonkala then filed an $8.3 million civil suit in federal court against the players and the university to test a newly passed law: The Violence Against Women Act. The act allows victims of rape or domestic violence to sue their alleged assailants in federal court for violating their civil rights.

Blair added, "The Brzonkala case is a good example. A young woman sued in federal in March 1996, over an incident that allegedly occurred at her college in September 1994. Fourteen months later, in July 1996, the federal trial court dismissed her case, saying she should have sued in state, rather than federal court. Had she done so then, she would have long ago had her day in court. Instead, her lawyers plan to let their client wait another year or so for justice while they attempt to vindicate the unconstitutional, radical feminist-inspired Violence Against Women Act.

"Once again left-wing feminists can't seem to distinguish their own interests from the interests of real women who are victims of sexual assault. If Congress and the feminist activists who lobbied for VAWA really cared about protecting victims, they would emphasize local crime prevention, followed by strong support for local prosecution," she concluded.

For information on U.S. vs. Morrison, visit the Wasington Post Web site.

For information on violence against women, visit the U.S. Justice Department's Violence Against Women Office or the National Organization for Women or the Independent Women's Forum.

Home Work Safety Rules Withdrawn

Written Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the letter was in response to a Texas-based credit services company that sought advice about moving some sales executives into home offices.

The area of law has been unclear even as the number of Americans regularly working at home has swelled to almost 20 million.

The now-retracted OSHA letter said, ``All employers, including those which have entered into 'work at home' agreements with employees, are responsible for complying with ... safety and health standards.''

It described how an employer could be liable if it knew or reasonably should know about home workplace hazards — such as computers that overload home electrical circuits, creating a fire hazard, or rickety stairs leading to a basement office.

And it suggested companies should train people to set up safe home offices and periodically inspect at-home workers' quarters.

Announcing the withdrawal of the advisory letter, U.S. Labor Secretary Alexis Herman said, "Family-friendly, flexible and fair work arrangements, including telecommuting, can benefit individual employees and their families, employers and society as a whole. As part of this continuing effort, I will ask the National Economic Council to convene an interagency working group, including the Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration and others, to examine the broad social and economic effects of telecommuting. As Secretary of Labor, I remain committed to policies that both strengthen families and protect workers on the job."

Family | Career | Art of Juggling | Single Moms | Health
Dad's Voice | Bookshelf | News | Recipes | Sports Mom | Discussion Lists
Business Directory | The Boards | Wisdom of Mothers | Postcards | Resources
Search | About Us | Contact Us |Advertising on the Refuge | Home

Copyright © 2000   Working Moms Refuge.