Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Maternal Profiling: How Employers Discriminate by Marital Status

By Sheila Gibbons, Women's eNews. Posted December 27, 2006.


Only 22 states and Puerto Rico specifically prohibit employers from inquiring about applicants' marital status. That means "maternal profiling" is a real problem for many women.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Only 22 states and Puerto Rico specifically prohibit employers from inquiring about applicants' marital status. That means "maternal profiling" is a real problem for many women.

Just ask Kiki Peppard.

For 12 years Peppard, a single mother, has campaigned to get Pennsylvania to make it illegal for employers to ask about an applicant's marital or familial status. Last month, on Nov. 30, the bill died its most recent death when committee chairmen refused to allow it to move to the floor of the state House and Senate for a vote.

This bill has not only failed with legislators, it's also been pretty much of a non-starter with the press. Peppard says -- and my own Web searches confirm -- there was no coverage of the bill's most recent failure.

Peppard began lobbying for someone to take up this bill after she moved to the Keystone State from New York, where she says she had never been asked about her marital or family status during job interviews. She assumed, in fact, that asking such questions was illegal.

But Pennsylvania is one of those many states that says nothing against the practice, which in the absence of a federal prohibition, makes it perfectly OK. In fact, those were usually among the first questions asked, she said, and many hiring managers ended the encounter soon after she honestly answered them.

"You have to understand how humiliating it was to be denied employment because I was a mother, and how humbling it was to not know where your next meal is coming from, and that as a woman in this country, you really are treated as worthless," she said.

Peppard and her two children received public assistance for a while. Eventually she found a job in a call center at East Stroudsburg University (which did not ask her about family matters in the interview).

Handful of Clips and Tapes

Peppard also took on a second career: lobbying. She spent six years trying to get Pennsylvania legislators to sponsor a bill against maternal profiling in interviews and the next six trying to get the bill passed into law.

She says she has been contacting reporters from the very beginning, but after all that time she can count the news sightings on just about two hands and most of that is coming from the alternative or independent press.

One break came her way when MomsRising.org made her story a centerpiece of their cause to improve U.S. motherhood conditions. Peppard is heavily featured in the activist group's 2006 documentary "The Motherhood Manifesto," based on the book of the same name by MomsRising co-founders Joan Blades and Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, who also published a Mother's Day piece about Peppard this year in the Nation. MomsRising blogger Cooper Munroe also got an op-ed about Peppard published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Sept. 27.

Following the MomsRising boost, Peppard was recently interviewed by a reporter for NPR as well as by Lisa Birnbach of GreenStone Media, the talk radio show for women launched earlier this year by a group that includes Gloria Steinem, a founder of Ms. magazine, actor Jane Fonda, Federal Communications Commissioner Susan Ness and broadcast veteran Edie Hilliard.

Other mothers' blogs also have helped spread the word, but her bill is still stuck in the political works and Peppard says major media decline her bids for coverage.

Female Anchors No Help

"I've sent numerous letters to female news anchors, the cast of 'The View,' Katie Couric, '60 Minutes,' '20/20,' 'Primetime,' you name it. No reply. I've sent letters to Paula Zahn. No reply," Peppard says. "I've written to Oprah twice a year for 12 years, asking if she would do a story about this on her show."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, workplace, working moms, employer discrimination, marital status

Sheila Gibbons is editor of Media Report to Women, a quarterly journal of news, research and commentary about women and media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
more
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 27, 2006 12:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since humans are more than their job lives it only makes sense that employers would want to hire well-rounded people interested in things other than their specific work load and be flexible in hours to suit the other needs of good employees. Pays off in the long run with more innovative and more respectful employees.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more Posted by: taxon
» RE: more Posted by: MatthewSavage
Don't forget it also affects men too albeit a bit more subtely.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 27, 2006 4:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think of it this way, if you're angling for a job and you're not married whereas your competitor is, married or not being married could swing the vote.

By the way, what's also not mentioned in this article is that a lot of companies actually look for more single men over married men believe it or not given that once married, concerns about lack of benefits for children will arise regardless of whether it's the man or woman seeking the job.

This article is factually correct for the most part but the last thing I need to read is another quasi-feminist article leaving men out of the equation. Ever thought about equality once in a while?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yeah, we men have it soooo rough. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» confirmation Posted by: MartianBachelor
Proof that Mainstream media is own ed by conservative owners
Posted by: Jkid4x on Dec 27, 2006 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I've sent numerous letters to female news anchors, the cast of 'The View,' Katie Couric, '60 Minutes,' '20/20,' 'Primetime,' you name it. No reply. I've sent letters to Paula Zahn. No reply," Peppard says. "I've written to Oprah twice a year for 12 years, asking if she would do a story about this on her show."

If the mainstream media was really liberal, I would see plenty of stories of this kind every day. But since the mainstream media is owned by conservatives, do not expect that to happen anytime soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a bit skeptical
Posted by: olderworker on Dec 27, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, of course there is discrimination in all workplaces, and yes, employers would rather avoid paying for insurance for dependents, etc. BUT there are LOTS of mothers in jobs at various levels, so I have my doubts about this one woman. Why did she have so much trouble getting a low-level job, such as the one she now holds in a call center? I've worked in call centers (for health insurance companies) and there were tons of women & men with children who work there. So I wonder whether there was some other issue, like the woman's personality, that might have gotten in the way of her being hired. Just a thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm a bit skeptical Posted by: Gregor
» RE: I'm a bit skeptical Posted by: DaBear
» RE: I'm a bit skeptical Posted by: olderworker
» RE: I'm a bit skeptical Posted by: Krain61
Zenobia
Posted by: Zenobia on Dec 27, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up in Pennsylvania, and I can attest that what this author discusses was my mother's experience time and time again. She went back for a second degree, a BA in Business Administration, when my sister and I were small. When she finished school--with a 4.0--and it came time to job hunt, she would come home from every interview outraged that the interviewer asked her if she was married and if she had kids. The assumption in suburban Pittsburgh in the early 80s was, if you were a man and had kids, you were a good hire because you would be responsible and committed as a "good provider." If you were a married woman with kids, the assuption was that your attempt at a career was a "cute" attempt to "find yourself," your salary would be used to buy jewelry, and you would take off of work for every school play and every case of sniffles. (No one beyond my parents considered that childcare could be a joint responsibility. They were considered pretty damn radical for thinking this.)

The surprising bit is, that this was and still is legal. My mom would always come home from interviews appropriately raging, and saying she was being asked illegal questions. The good news is, while Pittsburgh is still as red as Alabama in the suburbs (it only tilts blue because of the university areas), the city is changing because of an influx of people from California, Boston, and Chicago due to the growth of the tech and medical research industries.

As for the rest of PA, consider: it is one of those states with a school district that fought to teach intelligent design over evolution.

P.S.--Mom never did get a job in Business despite stellar qualifications and the right personality to make it to the top. She had to go back for a Master's in the nice traditionally nurturing, care taking field of Psychology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Key word: raging Posted by: Gregor
» RE: Key word: raging Posted by: DaBear
» Could this be the reason? Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Could this be the reason? Posted by: AvalonSeeker
Free Market determines
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 27, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this. If you regulate you'll get more costs and problems. The article fails to mention some items of interest:
1) being married can also be an ASSET when seeking employment (especially for younger men.) This is because it presumes some stability (won't quit for another job quickly or move town or spend all night out in bars.)

2) being married (for both sexes) usually results in lower insurance premium on vehicals (similiar reasoning.)

3) especially in Europe but also in Asia and sometimes in America, being married usually means a higher salary than an unmarried person with the same job description. (Again for the 'stability' aspect but also as a social good recognising that the person has more than one mouth to feed.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Free Market determines Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Free Market determines Posted by: albrechtkrausse
More is needed
Posted by: janvdb on Dec 27, 2006 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I applaud Peppard's efforts, merely making these questions illegal will not stop the discrimination. The discrimination would merely spread out to affect all women of childbearing age. And it's not only about getting hired; there is the old "Mommy tracking" instead of promoting mothers.

It's a serious problem which affects all women of childbearing age whether or not the questions are asked; in fact, I think asking the questions can allow those who are not affected by children to escape being tarred with the same brush.

We need to see discrimination against mothers and women of child-bearing age due to the expected effects of expected childbearing made specifically illegal and punishable just like discrimination against blacks or homosexuals.

What we need is daycare subsidized using special taxes on non-custodial parents and regulated to some minimum quality plus a system of Personal Leaves -- 6 months twice in one's life, with unemployment benefits from the unemployment insurance system. These should be MANDATORY for fathers -- the mother takes the first 6 months and then any father, married or not, would have to take the second six months.

All others could also take the leave, with some 60 day notice, at any time. They could use it for elder care, to climb mountains or to volunteer in Africa or just to be sick.

This would reduce discrimination against mothers, because everyone would have the same benefit.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Childcare subsidized by Posted by: lwbaby
» More what? is needed! Posted by: Krain61
Companies are in business
Posted by: lwbaby on Dec 27, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
toi make money, not provide social services. Hiring decisions are based on what is best for the company, not the individual. If a company has determined that hiring single parents (in most cases yes, moms) isn't in the best interest of the COMPANY they have no obligation to continue to do so. Heck, try getting a job nowadays if you're of either gender over 50. Companies have determined that health insurance costs them more so they higher younger. Sure, it's not fair but as I have told my own kids numerous times, that's life!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maternal profiling
Posted by: trisha6007 on Dec 27, 2006 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there any way to determine which States are included in the 22 that prohibit maternal profiling without searching each of the 50 States? I cannot believe this archaic bias is so prevalent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maternal profiling Posted by: Vyking
How about ending discrimination against childless people too?
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Dec 27, 2006 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Marriage" in this context is really about privileges (subsidies) for parents, right?

And why should childless people always be expected to provide them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Low in Wacky Feminist Story Category
Posted by: faultroy on Dec 27, 2006 7:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article has to be a new low in the Wacky Feminist Story Category.
The article discussions a woman's campaign to try to have a Matrimonial disclosure question on a job interview repealed. Why? oh I don't know... and neither does the author of the article. The protagonist thinks that since she didn't have to fill it out in New York State she shouldn't have to list her marriage status in Pennsylvania either.
This confused self styled lobbyist even acknowledges that she has been campaigning more than six years with no measurable results. She even says she didn't get a job because she disclosed her marital status--of course the possibility of not getting the job because the employer found a more qualified candidate cannot possibly be the real reason--she's a woman and a feminist to boot--what other reason could there be? From the article, you are left wondering how she was discriminated against. Was it because she was or wasn't married? And why would an employer discriminate against a person because they were or were not married? Apparently the author assumes that if you were born with a Vagina it will be self evident...hmmm...
From there, the article screeches into a number of different disjointed subjects--none having anything to do with the subject--her being a Welfare Mom, a Brandeis University Study on feminine job satisfaction, more Motherhood and of course more whining about discrimination. Though at no point do they discuss any specific discrimination. They merely imply it. The subject of the article is also considerably confused: on the one hand, she rails against having to disclose her marriage status, then in the next sentence she implies she was discriminated against for being a Mommy. Well, which is it? The article is about marriage disclosure discrimination. Why an employer would do this since they receive welfare tax credits is not disclosed. Nor does the author discuss why any employer would discriminate against either married people or mothers... I think someone has been hitting some spiked egg nog at the Xmas party a little heavily!
At the end of the article one is confused as to what the hell they are talking about--is she upset with having to disclose her marriage status? Then why didn't she just lie? Why didn't she go back to New York State where presumably she was happy with the non disclosure?--why spend five years of your life fighting about something this inane? Why not just get another frickking job and shut up????
Nor does the author say whether men are asked the same question (yes, they are) and why men are not lobbying for marital non disclosure?
Ah the bizarre logic of the feminine mind...it makes you want to steri--oh never mind...
No wonder this bumper crop of New Age Feminists can't get any respect...they find it difficult to think coherently, they certainly can't write, and they cannot find stories that have any relevance--even when there are so many valid stories floating around and slapping them on the back of the head.
I think that the Feminist Movement needs a serious injection of Testosterone into their movement. In this way, we'll at least have logical ariticles well written and of true substance and relevance for the average woman.
We certainly couldn't do any worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» good idea, but not original Posted by: MartianBachelor
I told you so!
Posted by: WIenvi on Dec 28, 2006 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was very happy to read this article. I thought I was the only one feeling this discrimination! I am currently searching for a job in a new city. I am recently married. If you look carefully at the dates on my resume, you will deduce that I am almost 30 years old. I have been to several interviews, and when asked why I moved to the new city, I say my husband and I wanted to be closer to family. I think that sets off a siren and the interviewer instantly assumes I'll be on maternity leave nine months after my first day. I have interviewed and/or applied for several jobs that I am perfectly qualified for, or even over-qualified for (but that's another article and another response -- the over-education of our work-force?), but it's been seven months! I have expressed my feelings that I am being discriminated to my friends and family, but they all insist it's illegal and therefore no way is it being practiced. But, I'm sorry. It's not illegal to think. And as soon as an employer has a thought in their mind, they can figure out ways to remove you from the prospective pool. Discrimination, while illegal, cannot fully be stopped. There is often no way to prove that the decisions about employment were made strictly on the marital discrimination. Good luck to all of us. I never used to be a strong feminist, but getting married and thinking about starting a family will change your perspective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I told you so! Posted by: krystal
Who is employing who?
Posted by: gordonroy on Dec 30, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole discussion is totally ridiculous. An employer has every right to ask these questions. Employees are paid to work and do a job. If they are planning to fall pregnant the next month it is obviously going to have an impact on the employer. Likewise if a single mom has to rush off to see to her child every 2nd day it is going to impact on the employer and they have every right to know about this beforehand. After all, they are the ones taking the risk operating a business in one of the most competitive societies on earth and most importantly, paying peoples salaries. The Soviet Union went this social welfare route with equal rights for all and look where they landed up and how their workers were exploited.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Zenobia...
Posted by: specom on Jan 3, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like yer mom was a bitch, I wouldn't hire her either...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The basic problem? Lack of humanity.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 4, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discrimination against mothers in the workplace is a serious problem, but it points to an even more serious one: that prosprective employees are often treated like furniture by prospective employers. Employers can, and do, check criminal records (a good idea), credit score, age, home location, worker's comp history and more – often through inexpensive online background checking agencies, and often in violation of (unenforcible) laws. In my case, for example, a Worker's Comp. claim for a back injury 17 years ago – and currently resolved – is keeping me from any kind of decent employment, despite my Master's Degree and 20 years' experience. Employers have become inhuman cowards who will not take even the smallest risk (which may also explain why american industry lags behind other countries' in innovation.)

The fact is, if you are not in line for an award for being a Perfect Human Being, your chances of landing a job are compromised, because in a buyer's market for labor (no matter what B.S. the Bushies feed us about the "great" economy), there is ALWAYS someone better just around the corner – or, at least, that's how employers think. To them, we are not human beings who can adapt to their needs but also need to survive; we are "production units," as replacable as bolts on an engine, and just as easily discarded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What nonsense
Posted by: fra59e on Jan 4, 2007 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In America, pregnancy is not compulsory; it's usually a choice. Unless this crybaby is the victim of an accident or a rape, she needs to learn that choices have consequences. If she chose to act in such a way that pregnancy was the result, then surely she could have foreseen that employment in the competitive world of work would become more difficult for her.

The employer's first duty is to remain profitable, and not primarily to provide social services. If she can find some employer for whom hiring her will be profitable, who is still able to cater to her parental needs, then good luck to her and I hope she finds that job and accepts it. Can't find one? Then let her start her own business. Others have done so.

But no employer has any moral obligation to hire a person who is unable to serve in the way that best fits the job description. This woman should get over it. And let her hurry on down to her nearest Planned Parenthood and learn the facts of life and let her work on becoming a strong-minded woman with the ability to say NO to men's propositions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have GOT to be Kidding!
Posted by: Solange on Jan 4, 2007 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all of those that agree that bosses, businesses, etc have the right to ask women about marraige/ family status because it affects their work productivity, I guess this means that when a man comes into interview with me for a prospective job, then I get to ask the following-
1. Has he ever. or does he plan to make any woman pregnant? 2. If he does have children, does he support them financially? Is he a dead beat dad? Can he prove he is or isn't? If he does have kids, who takes them to school, doctor, etc? If he is a dead beat dad, he's untrust worthy to follow through on responsibility, ergo, doesn't get the job. If he pushes the appointments, etc onto his wife or partner, than I surmise that he lacks commitment, ergo doesn't get the job.
If he's never had children, doesn't intend to have any, then I can surmise that he has problems with obligations, commitment, teamwork, ergo no job. Sound rediculous? No more so than some of these mysogenistic comments

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You have GOT to be Kidding! Posted by: AvalonSeeker
It Takes a Village Indeed
Posted by: Marcy on Jan 6, 2007 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The other day one of the authors of the Motherhood Manifesto was on the Micheal Medved talk show. He kept asking her why employers shouldn't have the right not to hire a single mother, when they know for sure she'll end up taking more time off. She kept denying this was true--which is, in my opninion, the wrong approach. It is quite likely, in fact, that a single mother might require flexibility to pick up her kid at school, come in late if she's sick, or whatever, and the reason employers should be willing to accommodate this is: In an enlightened society, we're all responsible to a certain extent for child raising. It's not going to wreck some guy's business if an employee takes a morning off here and there--but it IS wrecking the lives of parents and children to live forever with this unbearable and unnecessary work-family conflict.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]