Equal Treatment Of Women In The United States

2643 Words11 Pages
Running head: Equal Treatment of Women Equal Treatment of Women Trudy Glefke Ashford University HIS: 303 Instructor 08.20.2012 Equal Treatment of Women In the United States the struggle for the right to vote began for women in the early 1830’s and became intertwined with the struggle to abolish slavery. In 1869 a rift developed among feminists over the proposed 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men: some women believed that the amendment would strengthen their cause while others believed it would present a set back. Although equality for women was implied in the 14th Amendment of 1868, most of the states continued to restrict or prohibit women's suffrage. (Flexner, 1996).The proposal for the 19th Amendment was first…show more content…
(Mallor, Barnes, Bowers & Langvartd, 2010, p.1323). In the 90 years since securing their rights to vote women have met with many challenges in their attempt to forge equality in the employment arena. This paper will examine the equal treatment of women in the United States, the subsequent laws passed to protect women from discrimination, the social impact that has resulted from the changes brought about by the campaign and those that are still being addressed by women activists. Title VII The United States Supreme Court, as well as federal district and state courts, defines employee rights and an employer’s liability for employment law violations. The ethical treatment on the job, including hiring, firing, and promotions must be based on qualifications and merit not on race, gender, age, or sex. The most potent legal protection against unethical sex discrimination is contained in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Mallor et al, 2010). Title VII requires proof of discrimination either by “express policy” or by “disparate treatment”…show more content…
In a U.S. Supreme Court case, a company refused to hire women with pre-school age children but hired men who had pre-school age children. Mr. Marietta relied on his belief that women assume the care for the children. Men, he reasoned, have wives that perform the care giver role and were there for not encumbered in the workplace with family issues that come part and parcel with young children. The Court held that the company was liable to its female employees because Title VII prohibits the use of one hiring policy for women and another for men. Justice Marshall stated in joining the courts opinion “Even characterizations of the proper domestic roles of the sexes were not to serve as predicates for restricting employment opportunity. The exception for a "bona fide occupational qualification" was not intended to swallow the rule.” (Marshall, 1971, p. 5, para.7). Pregnant female employees and women of child–bearing years are also protected against work place
Open Document