Opinion ID: 775824
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Remedy Needed

Text: 64 As late as 1961, the Supreme Court upheld a gender classification because woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961). Only in 1971 did the Court find for the first time that a state law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it arbitrarily discriminated on the basis of sex. See Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971). By this time, Congress had already enacted the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit gender discrimination in the workplace. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(d); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. In 1978, Congress amended Title VII to include the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which barred discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(k). 65 As we have seen, the Court soon settled on a heightened standard of review for state-imposed gender classifications, requiring an exceedingly persuasive justification that is substantially related to important governmental objectives to validate classifications. Virginia , 518 U.S. at 533 (citing Miss. Univ. for Women, 458 U.S. at 724, and Wengler, 446 U.S. at 150); see also Kirchberg v. Feenstra , 450 U.S. 455, 461 (1981). Under heightened scrutiny, [s]tate actors controlling gates to opportunity . . . may not exclude qualified individuals based on `fixed notions concerning the roles and abilities of males and females.'  Virginia, 518 U.S. at 541 (quoting Miss. Univ. for Women, 458 U.S. at 725); see also id. at 532, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (the Constitution mandates for all citizens, regardless of gender, an equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.). 66 Heightened constitutional scrutiny and federal laws prohibiting gender discrimination in the workplace could not, however, erase the volumes of history of sex discrimination in this country. Id. at 531, 116 S. Ct. 2264. State support for stereotypical gender roles had allowed American employers -including the states -to develop and function without accommodating workers' home responsibilities during emergencies. Because women filled the caretaking role during times of crisis, men were expected to continue their work without interruption from domestic responsibilities. And, even as women entered the workplace in greater numbers, the continuing expectation that women would assume responsibility for domestic concerns put a burden on both working women and working men, hindering women's ability to compete equally in the marketplace while making it difficult for men and women to recast family responsibilities by sharing critical responsibilities at home. 67 Before enacting the FMLA, Congress heard testimony that 68 our social structures, and most particularly our employment policies, continue to operate as if women's role is to stay home and care for the family and men's role is to work outside the home for a pay check. . . . [W]e have not accommodated our institutions to the simple reality that men and women no longer operate in separate spheres, but rather that all employees, male and female, have family as well as employment responsibilities. Such accommodation is necessary if workers, and especially women workers, are to be able to exercise their right to equal employment and at the same time to preserve their family lives. 69 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1987: Joint Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Labor-Management Relations and the Subcomm. on Labor Standards of the Comm. on Education and Labor, 100th Cong. (1987) (statement of Donna Lenhoff, Associate Director, Women's Legal Defense Fund). The FMLA preamble and legislative history quite explicitly reflect this same understanding of the historical dynamic, and an intent to change it: Congress specifically found that due to the nature of the roles of men and women in our society, the primary responsibility for family caretaking often falls on women, and such responsibility affects the working lives of women more than it affects the working lives of men. §§ 2601(a)(5); see also H.R. Rep. No. 103-8(I), at 16-17 (1993) (The typical worker is no longer a man supporting a wife who stays at home, with the woman caring for the children and tending to other family needs . . . . Yet our workplaces are still too often modeled on the unrealistic and outmoded idea of workers unencumbered by family responsibilities.); S. Rep. No. 102-68, at 37 (1991) (In the absence of a family leave standard, childbirth and the need to care for a sick child or parent have an adverse impact on women's earnings.). 28 70 The FMLA's legislative history documents statistically the harmful and extant effects of stereotypical gender roles on women's participation in the workplace immediately prior to the Act's enactment. The evidence revealed that women still bore the brunt of domestic responsibilities in American society, and that this burden hindered women's participation in the paid workforce. 71 Specifically, Congress found that [t]wo-thirds of the non-professional caregivers for older, chronically ill, or disabled persons are working women, the most common caregiver being a child or spouse. H.R. Rep. No. 103-8(I), at 24 (1993); S. Rep. No. 103-3, at 7. The cost of elder care is estimated at $4.8 billion annually in lost income (mostly to women) . . . . S. Rep. No. 102-68, at 28 (1991) (emphasis added). (1993). A 1990 study concluded that`caring for elderly parents forces large numbers of women in the labor force to cut their hours, take time off without pay, and rearrange job schedules.' Indeed the study estimated that 11 to 13% of women caring for elderly parents actually quit their jobs to provide care. H.R. Rep. No. 102-135(I), at 20 (1991) (emphasis added). 72 Further, the record before Congress indicated that most state employers had not developed family leave policies concomitant with those provided for in the FMLA. H.R. Rep. No. 103-8(I), at 78-83 (1993) (Minority Views Attachment B (information provided by Dep't of Labor)). When the FMLA was enacted, many states had enacted no family or medical leave law applicable to state or private sector employees, and many more had either no provisions regarding family care leave for state employees or provided family leave care for state employees so limited that, as a practical matter, employees lacked job security if a relative needed care for a prolonged illness. Id. Congress also recognized that if a government employer does not follow a uniform leave policy, discretionary treatment can lead to unequal treatment of employees (especially, for instance, in the granting of parental leave), H.R. Rep. 103-8(II), at 10-11 (1993), perpetuating stereotypical gender roles. 73