By Amanda Estes

Staff Writer

As a trial lawyer and a mother of two, State Rep. Cynthia Dill (D-Cape
Elizabeth) recognizes the challenges of balancing a career with family
responsibilities.

“It takes more to prove you’re a player if you have to stop a
deposition at 5 [p.m.] to pick up children,” she said. “It’s one of
those things if you’re a woman who has children and works, you deal
with it. I’ve definitely felt at times that I’m treated differently
because of family responsibilities.”

Dill submitted a bill to the Legislature that would prohibit employment
discrimination based on parental status, marital status or familial
responsibilities. Out of 566 bill requests voted on by the
Legislature’s legislative council, Dill’s was one of roughly 150
approved for the 2008 session, which opens in January.  

“I don’t want this bill to be thought of as just good for employees and
bad for employers,” Dill said. “We have so many great employers in
Maine – who really want to do right by their employees.”

Maine’s anti-discrimination laws currently prohibit discrimination in
employment based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, physical or
mental disability, religion, age, ancestry or national origin.

Maine Human Rights Commission Executive Director Patricia Ryan said the
commission is interested in hearing the discussions that will follow
Dill’s proposal. The commission investigates charges of unlawful
discrimination in employment, housing, education, access to public
accommodations, extension of credit and offensive names. Because
parental status, marital status and familial responsibilities are not
protected classes, the commission does not have the jurisdiction to
investigate complaints in those areas.

Ryan said new protected classes are often the result of individuals coming forward and speaking out against unfair treatment.

Attorney David Webbert of the Augusta law firm, Johnson & Webbert,
is currently representing a Sebago woman who brought a civil case
against Anthem Health Plans of Maine after she claims she was denied a
promotion because she is a mother of four children, including
6-year-old triplets and an 11-year-old.

Laurie Chadwick claims after nine years of strong performance, she was
denied a promotion to a supervisory position last year and told she
“had too much on her plate” including “her kids” and classes she was
taking toward her bachelor’s degree. Her female superiors said if they
were in her position, they would be “overwhelmed.”

Chadwick claims she was the victim of illegal sex discrimination
because a “determinative factor in the decision was the gender
stereotype that, because she is a woman, Ms. Chadwick would allow her
obligations to her children and husband to adversely affect her work
performance,” according to her complaint.

Anthem Spokesperson Mark Ishkanian said the company’s decision was based solely on the employees’ merits.

“We firmly believe she was not discriminated against,” he said. “In
fact, the person who received the promotion was also a woman with
dependent children.”

Webbert said the trial is scheduled to go to federal court early next year.

 “It’s a very hot area for employment law in general and it
happens to men too,” he said. “If [men] want to stay home and take care
of the kids, they get a lot of resistance because people think it’s the
woman’s job.”

Denying a male employee leave to care for an infant when leave would be
granted to a female employee is one example of discrimination
referenced in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC)
guidelines, released in May.

Although the EEOC federal statutes do not prohibit discrimination based
solely on parental or other caregiver status – discrimination must be
based on a protected class such as sex or race – the guidelines are
meant to outline whether discrimination against working parents or
people with caregiving responsibilities constitutes unlawful
stereotyping. In addition to state and local laws providing broader
protections, some people with parental or other caregiver status may
also be protected under other federal laws, such as the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

According to the guidelines, “lowering subjective evaluations of a
female employee’s work performance after she becomes the primary
caregiver of her grandchildren [and] reassigning a woman to less
desirable projects based on the assumption that, as a new mother, she
will be less committed to her job” might also constitute unlawful
discrimination.  

In the 2006 fiscal year, the EEOC received 4,901 charges of
pregnancy-based discrimination. The EEOC resolved 4,629 of those
charges and recovered roughly $10.4 million for the plaintiffs.

Roughly half of U.S. states prohibit employment discrimination based on
marital status, according to a December 2006 survey of
anti-discrimination laws by the National Conference of State
Legislatures. Alaska, California and the District of Columbia all
provide protection against pregnancy, while Alaska and D.C. also
include parenthood and childbirth in their respective protected
classes. Pennsylvania prohibits discrimination based on familial status.

Dill said states with strong anti-discrimination laws tend to have stronger economies.

Webbert agrees with that correlation.

“I think it’s good for the economy for women not to feel like they
can’t have children and not do jobs as well, because that keeps a lot
of talented women out of the work force,” he said.