Category: Stand Up For Workers

I. Introduction 

The filibuster has been described as an obstructionary tactic used to defeat bills and motions, traditionally employed by speaking indefinitely to delay voting on an issue. The term itself comes from Dutch, Spanish, and French words used to describe pirates, plunderers, and more literally, “freebooters.” Once characterized by marathon speeches, reading recipes aloud, singing Sinatra’s “South of The Border” or reading Green Eggs and Ham, the filibuster has now changed course. Instead of hours-long speeches requiring catheter bags and sleeping in the chamber, modern Senate rules in place since the early 1970s allow the so-called “silent filibuster” which merely requires a member to announce an intent to filibuster to, in effect, create a minority veto. The net result is a virtual end to the simple majority rule since any piece of legislation that does not involve budget reconciliation now requires a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate before the Senate can vote on the legislation itself.

Once upon a time, a filibuster on a single bill would bring the entire government to a halt since the Senate considered one bill, or one nomination, at a time. This was both good and bad as though it stopped everything, it also put pressure on all sides to resolve the issue so that the Senate could move forward. That all changed in 1975, when Senator Robert Byrd, the then majority whip, announced dual tracking. This rule change, designed for efficiency, allowed the majority leader to set aside a slow-moving bill to consider other matters and has thus made filibusters largely “pain free.” Going further, some might say that dual tracking, combined with the silent filibuster, has allowed democracy to die in the darkness.

The evolution of the filibuster must be viewed in the context of the current 50/50 split Senate with a tie-breaking vote by the Vice President, combined with Mitch McConnell’s announcement that “100 percent” of his focus as minority leader is “on stopping this administration.” Thus, without some change in circumstance, the country can expect little progress on important matters such as climate change or voting rights. The most prominent bill currently being blocked, the For the People Act, is intended to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal office holders. The House passed the bill in 2019, but it was later blocked under then Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. House Democrats reintroduced the bill in 2021 and the bill passed in the House of Representatives on a near party-line vote before advancing to the Senate. Senate Republicans have since blocked the bill from proceeding to a vote with a silent filibuster. This has brought the filibuster into everyday conversation, raising questions about what it is, how it is used, and what it means for a President, like Joe Biden, who received a popular vote majority—by more than 7 million people in the 2020 Presidential election—but whose agenda is stalled by a minority veto.

This article will address a few important points, including an overview of the history of the filibuster, the most notable historical examples of its use, its prominence in blocking civil rights legislation, its modern use today, and what we should do now. It is only when examined through a historical perspective that we can decide as a nation if the filibuster should be a permanent feature of our government.

II. History of the Filibuster 

While not a part of the Constitution of the United States, the filibuster dates back to ancient Rome and some form of filibustering has existed since the inception of our Constitutional democracy. Senate historian Betty Koed, who has written and spoken extensively on the subject, points to a passage from the very first U.S. Senate session, in 1789, when Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary, the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.”

Initially, both the Senate and the House had unlimited debate. During the 51^st Congress, the House ended what was called the “disappearing quorum,” where members could kill a bill by absenting themselves and denying the House a quorum. The elimination of the disappearing quorum effectively killed the filibuster in the House more than 130 years ago. While many predicted dire consequences for the House, the 51^st Congress, which had been expected to accomplish little or nothing, became one of the most productive in history with Republicans in full control. Action taken by the 51^st Congress included the Sherman Antitrust Act designed to rein in big business; the establishment of land grants for colleges serving Black students in the South; the expansion of pensions for Civil War veterans; the creation of the foundation for the National Park Service; and the granting of statehood to the Dakotas, Montana, Washington, and Idaho. The House now has limited how much individual members can speak, and effectively eliminated the filibuster. Instead of taking the example from the House, the Senate has gone in the opposite direction, making the filibuster more routine and easier to use.

According to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), the record for the longest individual filibuster in U.S. history remains with Senator Strom Thurmond who spoke for more than 24 hours in August of 1957 opposing Civil Rights legislation. It was one of many filibusters by white, Southern Democrats, including one by Senator Robert Byrd, which Byrd later said he regretted.

In 1992, New York Senator Alphonse D’Amato staged a 15-hour filibuster over a tax issue, that famously included reading from the phone book and singing. Senator Huey Long of Louisiana spoke for 15 hours in 1935, during which he read from the Bible and read food recipes aloud, regarding a controversy over government jobs. In more recent years, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky spoke for 13 hours in 2013 in opposition to an Obama nominee for the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Senator Ted Cruz gave a 21-hour speech against the Affordable Care Act in 2013, including the now infamous readings from Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham.          

Some of the most infamous uses of the filibuster were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Opponents of the Act filibustered for a record-breaking 60 working days while CBS and other major news agencies reported from the steps of the Capitol. Years earlier, the filibuster was used to defeat the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill. Lynch mobs had murdered more than 4,000 Black people between the end of Reconstruction and the middle of the 20^th Century. Activists and organizations such as the NAACP worked to expose the savagery of lynching and to debunk the myth that lynch mobs existed to avenge the rape of white women as the anti-Black violence rose to grim levels. Notable examples of this violence included a massacre in Elaine, Arkansas where 500 heavily armed soldiers, law enforcement and white vigilantes killed hundreds of Black sharecroppers, and the Tulsa Race Massacre in the area famously known as Black Wall Street.  

Despite what was substantial backing for the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, the bill ultimately died a procedural death at the hands of a filibuster led by Southern Democrats. This filibuster turned highly theatrical as Senators schemed strategies to delay debate, stretching parliamentary procedures into lengthy ordeals, reading from stacks of books, pamphlets, and newspapers, sometimes for hours at a time.  

Ultimately, on December 2, 1922, the Republicans surrendered. A leading Republican, Senator William Borah of Idaho, had refused to invoke cloture, citing objections to the bill’s constitutionality. Some later suggested that the Republicans, such as Borah, who refused to invoke cloture, were secretly angling for the Bill’s defeat. Years later, a cynical Borah would brag to W.E.B. Du Bois that the handling of Dyer Bill had been “one of the finest illustrations of how we play politics with the negro that I know of.”  

Civil Rights leaders later said that the bill “was not killed by majority vote but was lynched by a filibuster.” Eight days following the Bill’s collapse, vigilantes lynched another four Black Americans. Later in the 1930s, southern white Senators filibustered the Costigan-Wagner Anti-Lynching Act, even though the bill’s sponsors were members of the Southerners’ own party.  

These early filibusters proved to be precursors of what would come later. While Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour one-man filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 still holds the record for this obstructionary tactic, as recently as last year, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky conducted a one-man blockage against a 21^st Century attempt to enact a new version of the federal anti-lynching law that the House first passed more than a hundred years ago.

The dual tracking rule change that occurred in the 1970s has changed the filibuster substantially. While the rule was intended to allow the Senate to run more smoothly, it made the filibuster an even more effective obstacle to legislation. Though it is not used in all cases, any Senator can launch a filibuster simply by announcing that they object when other Senators try to move forward on legislation. While the objector can specify their reasons for the objection, doing so is not necessary.

To end the filibuster, the full Senate must trigger a different superweapon – cloture – which closes the debate. Under current rules, this requires a 60 percent, or three-fifths, vote of the Senate. If cloture passes, it mandates a maximum of 30 hours of debate and no more. Only at the conclusion of the debate will there a be a vote on the actual measure that the filibuster was intended to block. If cloture does not pass, the bill remains in filibuster as the Senate moves on to other business. The practical effect is that all legislation requiring Senate action must now face an initial 60-vote hurdle. The only exceptions are so-called budget reconciliation bills, which allow for a simple majority vote in the Senate for bills that impact the Federal budget. However, only up to three budget reconciliation bills may be considered each year.

III. Conclusion: What to do About the Filibuster

In 1917, with filibuster frustrations mounting and at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted Senate Rule 22 which allowed the Senate to invoke cloture and limit debate with a two-thirds majority vote. However, filibusters remained an effective means to block legislation, since a two-thirds majority vote was difficult to obtain. After cloture was first used to end the filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles, the Senate managed to invoke cloture only five times over the next four decades.

In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 of the 100 senators. Frustrated with the Republicans’ continued efforts of to stall the nominations of President Barack Obama, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for non-SCOTUS judicial nominees in 2013. In turn, the Republicans eliminated the filibuster requirement for United States Supreme Court nominations in 2017 when they had the majority, leading to the current 6-3 conservative majority.       

The “nuclear option” is the term used for “blowing up” or eliminating the filibuster. While this could be done with a simple majority vote for a rule change, many, reportedly including President Biden, are reluctant to change the rules of the Senate. Some consider eliminating the filibuster a precarious move, especially in circumstances with a closely divided Senate, as the majority party could lose their main tool in the Senate not very far down the road if they find themselves in the minority again. Like any “nuclear” option, eliminating the filibuster carries consequences for all concerned.         

According to legend, while Robert Byrd was on his deathbed, the Senate was considering the Affordable Care Act. Senator McConnell insisted that all 60 Democrats had to be present to overcome the filibuster and move the Act forward. McConnell declined to allow Robert Byrd “a pass” by finding a Republican to vote for cloture so that Byrd’s actual appearance could be avoided. Instead, Byrd was forced to physically come into the Senate in a wheelchair, and in a very feeble state, to cast his vote for cloture. Though every Senator, presumably including Mitch McConnell, applauded Byrd and gave him a standing ovation, the only thing that Byrd would say was “shame, shame.”One of the dire warnings of the Founding Fathers was factionalism, which had led to bloody civil wars in England during the 17^th Century. Political parties were seen as a necessary evil, but Alexander Hamilton called them “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. In Federalist PaperNo. 10, James Madison wrote that one of the main functions of a well-constructed union should be its ability “to break and control the violence of faction.” With the modern-day filibuster, the minority “faction” has a death grip on progress. To escape the tyranny of the minority in the Senate, the nuclear option may be the only way forward.

^{[1] See e.g., Conservative Partnership Institute, Shutdown State of Play: What’s Really Going On, CPI Blog (Jan. 19, 2018), https://www.cpi.org/post/shutdown-state-of-play-whats-really-going-on (“Though the filibuster is considered an obstructionary tactic, it is a critical feature of minority rights in the Senate, and one that’s historically been used by both parties to protect their interests.”).
[2] Merriam-Webster, The Piratical History of ‘Filibuster’, https://perma.cc/4S8X-SK62 (last visited Aug. 4, 2021).
[3] See Jada Yuan, No standing, no marathon speeches, no catheter bags: How filibustering got way too easy,  Wash. Post (July 5, 2021), https://perma.cc/P2CK-ANU7 (“Where silent filibusters now land with a thud, talking filibusters once had their own entertaining, even transcendent, way of making history.”).
[4] Luke Savage, If Democracy Is Dying, Why Are Democrats So Complacent?, The Atlantic (May 24, 2021), https://perma.cc/KCW8-JBKE (“Due to the [Senate’s] filibuster rules, most legislation requires 60 votes to pass—an impediment that effectively empowers lawmakers representing only a tiny sliver of the electorate to block policies they dislike at will, including those designed to make American democracy fairer and more inclusive.”); see also Tim Lau, The Filibuster Explained, Brennan Ctr. for J. (Apr. 26, 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/filibuster-explained (“Anytime a group of 41 or more senators simply threatens a filibuster, the Senate majority leader can refuse to call a vote.”).
[5] Yuan, supra note 3.
[6] “Democrocy Dies in Darkness” is the official slogan of the Washington Post.
[7] Donald Judd and Caroline Kelly, Biden dismisses McConnell’s pledge to focus ‘on stopping this new administration’, CNN (May 5, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/05/politics/biden-mcconnell-100-stopping-new-administration/index.html.
[8] See H.R. 1/S. 1.
[9] Ballotpedia, HR1, “For the People Act of 2021”, https://ballotpedia.org/HR1,_%22For_the_People_Act_of_2021%22 (last visited Aug. 4, 2021) (“The United States House of Representatives approved HR1 on March 3, 2021, by a vote of 220-210, with all but one present Democrat voting in favor and all present Republicans voting against it. The Senate companion bill, S1, was introduced in that chamber on March 17. On June 22, the Senate voted 50-50 to allow debate on the bill, shy of the 60 votes needed to proceed.”).
[10] See Barbara Sprunt, Senate Republicans Block Democrats’ Sweeping Voting Rights Legislation, NPR (June 22, 2021) https://www.npr.org/2021/06/22/1008737806/democrats-sweeping-voting-rights-legislation-is-headed-for-failure-in-the-senate.
[11] Federal Election Commission, Official 2020 Presidential General Election Results (Feb. 1, 2021) (showing 81,268,924 votes for Biden and 74,216,154 votes for Trump).
[12] Lisa Desjardins, How does the filibuster work?, PBS News Hour (Jan. 27, 2021) https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-does-the-filibuster-work.
[13] Id.
[14] David Litt, We Already Got Rid of the Filibuster Once Before,  The Atlantic (Mar. 8, 2021) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/we-already-got-rid-filibuster-once-before/618201/.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id. (stating that Republican lawmakers got rid of the filibuster in the House of Representatives 130 years ago).
[18] Desjardins, supra note 12.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Magdalene Zier and John Fabian Witt, For 100 years, the filibuster has been used to deny Black rights, Wash. Post (Mar. 18, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/18/100-years-filibuster-has-been-used-deny-black-rights/.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.; see also Tulsa Historical Society and Museum, 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, https://www.tulsahistory.org/exhibit/1921-tulsa-race-massacre/ (last visited August 4, 2021).
[28] Zier and Witt, supra note 24.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.
[31] Id.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Id.
[35] Id.
[36] Id.
[37] Desjardins, supra note 12.
[38] Id.
[39] Id.
[40] Id.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] Id.
[45] Cong. Research Serv., R44058, The Budget Reconciliation Process: Stages of Consideration 3 (2021), https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44058.pdf (discussing the number of reconciliation bills allowed under the Senate’s interpretation of the Congressional Budget Act); see also Richard Kogan and David Reich, Introduction to Budget “Reconciliation”, Ctr. on Budget and Pol. Priorities (Jan. 21, 2021), https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation (“Under Senate interpretations of the Congressional Budget Act, the Senate can consider the three basic subjects of reconciliation — spending, revenues, and the debt limit — in a single bill or multiple bills, but a budget resolution can generate no more than one bill addressing each of those subjects. In practice, however, a tax bill is likely to affect not only revenues but also outlays to some extent (for example, via refundable tax credits). Thus as a practical matter a single budget resolution can probably generate only two reconciliation bills: a tax-and-spending bill or a spending-only bill and, if desired, a separate debt limit bill.”).
[46] United States Senate, About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview, https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm (last visited Aug. 4, 2021).
[47] Id.
[48] Id.
[49] Id.
[50] See Camille Caldera, Fact Check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate Filibuster on Supreme Court Nominees, USA Today (Oct. 1, 2020), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/ (“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was not responsible for lowering the vote threshold to confirm Supreme Court nominees to 51. Rather, he orchestrated that change for judicial nominees and presidential appointments, excluding the Supreme Court. When control of the Senate changed parties, it was Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who extended the rule change to apply to nominees to the Supreme Court in 2017.”).
[51] See e.g., Laura Barron-Lopez, Biden won’t embrace filibuster reforms even as the rest of his party does, Politico (Mar. 8, 2021), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/08/biden-filibuster-reform-474503 (“President Joe Biden isn’t budging from his desire to keep the filibuster in place; at least not yet. And activists demanding reforms are growing increasingly befuddled by the administration’s hesitance.”); but see Grace Segers, Biden signals he’s open to eliminating Senate filibuster over GOP “abuse”, CBS News (Mar. 26, 2021) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/filibuster-reform-senate-biden-republican-abuse/ (explaining that President Biden has expressed some support for eliminating the silent filibuster, and has indicated that he may be open to further reforms “if there’s complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster”).
[52] See Brent Baker, CBS Leads with Byrd’s ‘Shame, Shame’ in Story on GOP ‘Delaying Tactics’, Media Research Ctr. (Dec. 19, 2009), http://archive2.mrc.org/bias-alerts/cbs-leads-byrds-shame-shame-story-gop-delaying-tactics.
[53] Sarah Pruitt, The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart, History (Mar. 7, 2019), https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion.
[54] Id.
[55] Id.}

As more employees return to in-person work and hiring ramps up, it’s important for workers to know their rights as well as what constitutes a hostile or intimidating work setting. After months of isolated remote work or staggered schedules where communication was often virtual and employees were separated, returning to workplace decorum may be challenging for some individuals, whether they’re managers or coworkers.

But what’s the difference between unwanted or annoying behavior and actions that create an illegal, hostile work environment? A hostile environment begins with harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines harassment as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, older age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information.

When Does Harassment Lead to a Hostile Environment? 

Harassment is considered unlawful when it is carried out against someone from a protected class, and it additionally satisfies one of two conditions:

• Enduring it becomes a condition of employment, or
• It becomes so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would consider it to have created an intimidating, offensive, or hostile work environment

In a hostile work environment, a reasonable person is so abused or intimidated that they are not able to perform their job. Isolated incidents, annoyances, or petty slights, such as a boss playing favorites, are generally not considered illegal behavior under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Instead, offensive conduct that can lead to a hostile work environment might include: 

• Using slurs or epithets, making offensive jokes, or name-calling
• Making threats or physical assaults
• Engaging in intimidation, ridicule, or mockery
• Making insults or put-downs
• Sending or displaying offensive pictures or objects
• Interfering with work performance

The harasser can be a supervisor, coworker, or even a non-employee, such as a customer or vendor. Since the person being harassed may not be the only one affected by the offensive behavior, coworkers and others who are impacted may also be eligible for filing a hostile-work-environment claim.

Recent EEOC Settlements on Hostile Work Environments

Identifying the conduct that qualifies for a hostile work environment, particularly in a post-pandemic world where workers may just be getting used to being near one another again, can be difficult. Here are some recent EEOC settlements related to hostile work environments that might help clarify the issues:

• Continued racial slurs — In a case against Ryder Integrated Logistics and Kimco Staffing, the EEOC argued the two companies created a hostile working environment by allowing employees to continuously use racial slurs and epithets toward African American coworkers. The EEOC contended that after a Black employee complained, the companies fired the employee rather than correcting the situation. Each company was required to pay $1 million and implement policies, procedures, and systems to prevent future instances.
• Sexual harassment against an entire group of females — MVM, a security services provider, was ordered to pay $100,000 to a female security guard who was subjected to sexual harassment by a manager. The harassment included unwanted touching and lewd comments, and the guard was fired shortly after complaining. The same manager made inappropriate sexual comments, asked for explicit pictures, and made sexual advances toward an entire class of female employees. Although supervisors and other managers were aware of the harassment, they allowed it to continue. Along with requiring the company to provide monetary relief and take other measures, the EEOC ordered MVM to refrain from allowing a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment.
• Sexually hostile work environment on client site — In 2020, the EEOC charged HM Solutions, a commercial and industrial janitorial services company, with subjecting four female employees to a sexually hostile work environment. Over a period of three years while working at a client site, the women were subjected to sexual harassment by both a male HM Solutions manager and a male shift supervisor. The women complained, and other supervisors observed some of the harassing behavior, but the abuse continued. HM Solutions was ordered to pay $315,000 to the women, as well as provide employee training on sexual harassment, update its anti-harassment policies, and report complaints to the EEOC.

At Barrett & Farahany, we are happy to answer any questions about harassment and hostile work environments. We seek justice at work for all employees. If you or anyone you know is looking for answers, please contact us to speak to one of our attorneys.

Any kind of discrimination based on national origin is against the law, whether it is being carried out by a US company against someone of non-American descent or involves a foreign company’s US operations preferring someone from its own country over an American citizen. Employment and hiring practices that favor employees or applicants of a particular nationality can also be considered discrimination based on national origin and are against the law.

Protections Against National Origin Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, termination, pay, and other aspects of employment based on national origin, just as it does for race, sex, religion, and color. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), national origin discrimination is defined as treating an applicant or employee unfavorably because they are from a particular part of the world, of a specific ethnicity, have a certain accent, or appear to be of a particular ethnic background. It also encompasses unfavorable treatment of employees or applicants who are married to a person of a specific national origin.

All employees who work in the US, whether employed by an American or foreign company, are protected by these laws. So, if an American is working for a foreign company on US soil and is discriminated against because of their origin, the same protections apply. This is sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination against a US worker. The only exception is when a foreign company is covered by a treaty or international agreement that allows them to give preference to their own nationals for certain positions.

Recent Cases

In 2020, the EEOC received almost 6,400 new charges of discrimination based on national origin and resolved over 6,900 (including cases filed in previous years). Of those resolved, 6.2% were settled. When the settlement included monetary compensation, companies accused of discriminating based on national origin paid out a total of $26.3 million in 2020.

Here are some examples of recent EEOC settlements involving claims of discrimination based on national origin:

• In June 2020, Albertson’s agreed to pay $210,000 to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit alleging the grocer allowed a manager in one of its La Mesa, California, stores to harass Hispanic employees by forbidding them to speak Spanish and requiring English only. In addition to the compensation, Albertson’s agreed to review and revise its discrimination policies, and provide employee and manager training with an emphasis on language discrimination.
• City Sports, a chain of sports fashion stores in Chicago and surrounding areas, settled a race and national origin discrimination case in which it was accused of favoring Koreans over African Americans and Hispanics for management positions. In the November 2020 settlement, the retailer agreed to pay 19 current and former employees a total of $420,000, and hire a consultant to help implement anti-discrimination policies, procedures, and training.
• In April, Helados La Tapatia in Fresno, California, agreed to pay $200,000 as part of a national origin discrimination lawsuit. The ice cream company was accused of favoring Hispanic job applicants over black, white, and Asian applicants for entry-level, warehouse, and driver positions, as well as discouraging non-Hispanic applicants from applying. The company agreed to implement an open hiring and recruiting policy, among other settlement requirements.
• Last month, Wild Fork Foods in Miami, part of JBS USA, agreed to pay $130,000 to settle a claim of national origin and racial discrimination. Wild Forks was accused of violating federal law when a Hispanic female employee in the Miami corporate office was subjected to a hostile work environment based on both her race and national origin, subjected to retaliation for complaining, and ultimately forced out of her job. The decree also includes specialized training on national origin discrimination, among other requirements.

Justice Department Efforts

In addition to EEOC efforts to protect US workers against reverse discrimination by foreign corporations, the Justice Department Civil Rights Division’s Immigration and Employee Rights Section has been pursuing cases against companies that discriminate against US workers in favor of temporary visa holders. In 2017, the department launched the Protecting US Workers initiative and has been pursuing employers it views as denying opportunities to US workers.

In December 2020, the department settled a case against Ikon Systems, a staffing and recruiting company based in Texas. The settlement resolved claims that Ikon was discriminating against US workers by posting job advertisements specifying a preference for applicants with temporary work visas. The claim included allegations that Ikon failed to consider a single US citizen for the openings.

At Barrett & Farahany, we are happy to answer any questions about discrimination based on national origin. We seek justice at work for all employees. If you or anyone you know is looking for answers, please contact us to speak to one of our attorneys.

As the economy has opened up, more employees have returned to some form of in-person employment, with one exception. Working mothers, who took on the bulk of caregiving responsibilities during the pandemic and scaled back or totally left the workforce in droves, are still plagued by a lack of childcare and in many cases unable to return to the workplace. The immediate impact is troublesome, but the long-term effect on women’s advancement and gender diversity in the workplace could be irreparable.

In a recent Fulton County Daily Report article, Amanda Farahany, managing partner of Barrett & Farahany, and Elizabeth Sigler of Stanton Law discuss the potential for future sexual discrimination claims if employers start penalizing women based on stereotyped assumptions related to caregiving obligations. They also pose a challenge to businesses and the government to come up with a better solution in order to keep gender parity from becoming a COVID-19 casualty.

Familial Status is Not a Protected Class

Most pandemic-related terminations have had nothing explicitly to do with gender but instead have been a result of an employee not being able to perform their job, write Farahany and Sigler. Even if the reason for poor attendance or performance is related to lack of childcare, employers are not required to retain employees who cannot make it to work or do their job, the authors note. Being a parent is not a protected class in Georgia and employers are not required to find accommodations.

Potential Basis for Title VII Sex Discrimination Claims

With no legal protections for caregivers, Farahany and Sigler contend that sex discrimination under Title VII is theoretically the likeliest basis for future claims. They give the example of an employer that exhibits gender bias against women under the assumption that female employees are caregivers and less committed to their jobs. If the employer subjects the women to negative performance reviews and adverse consequences under those assumptions, a female worker might have a Title VII sex discrimination claim.

Likewise, if an employer hires a man over a woman who they assume has potential caregiver obligations, the employer may have unwittingly offered up evidence for the woman to argue stereotyped assumptions, note Farahany and Sigler. Stereotypes hurt all women, not just mothers with caregiver responsibilities, note the authors.

Solution Requires Public and Private Commitment

The solution to the childcare problem is not an easy one. Continued flexible work situations and help paying for childcare are two options that could help, but these alone do not solve the problem, note Farahany and Sigler. They challenge businesses and the government to come together to create a solution, be it statewide childcare legislation, making familial status a protected class, or something else.

To read the full article, click here. (Note, summary only available unless you are a Fulton County Daily Report subscriber.)

If you suspect your employer is applying gender stereotypes in performance reviews, promotions, or hiring decisions, and thus negatively impacting you and other women, please contact us. The experienced team at Barrett & Farahany can help evaluate your situation and make sure you receive justice at work.

The COVID-19 pandemic may have changed the way we work, but it didn’t keep sexual harassment at bay. Even with fewer people in offices, a dispersed workforce, and many interactions virtual for the past year, the problem has persisted and, in some cases, worsened. As women moved home to work, the harassment moved online to Zoom calls, emails, and texts. In in-person settings, perpetrators took advantage of emptier workspaces or were emboldened by a mask.

Remote Harassment Is Still Harassment

According to the EEOC, sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advancements, requests for sexual favors, or verbal harassment of a sexual nature, all of which can occur online. Sexual harassment becomes illegal when it creates a hostile or offensive work environment.

The agency has yet to release statistics related to sexual harassment charges during the pandemic. The issue was, however, discussed at a recent EEOC hearing on the impact of the pandemic on civil rights in the workplace. As one speaker noted, the pandemic has created opportunities for increased sexual harassment and retaliation against those who report it.

Zoom Exposure

In probably the most public case of online sexual harassment in the past year, Jeffrey Toobin, a writer for The New Yorker and legal analyst for CNN, was fired by the magazine for what he termed as an accidental exposure of his genitals during a work Zoom call. Toobin, who was reportedly masturbating, has stated that he thought audio was muted and video turned off. On the call with Toobin were staff from both the New Yorker and WNYC, a New York public radio station.

While the Toobin incident might be the most publicized, it is certainly not the only incident. A Pew Research study found that sexual harassment of American women online in all settings, not just at work, had doubled since the last survey in 2017. In 2020, 16% of all female respondents reported being sexually harassed online. Younger women were more likely to have experienced an incident of virtual sexual harassment, with 33% of women under the age of 35 reporting an incident.

Studies in other countries that were specific to the workplace also pointed to an increase in harassment. A survey of women working from home in the UK found that the pandemic had resulted in an upsurge of online sexual harassment, with harassers most often using online work platforms and social media. Almost half of the women experiencing sexual harassment said it was happening remotely, and 23% reported an escalation in incidences since working from home. One state employment commission in Australia reported an 8% increase in sexual harassment complaints since the pandemic began.

Pandemic Exacerbated Risk Factors

In addition to distance and a screen between individuals, online environments are often less formal than in-person work settings and set the stage for workers to feel more comfortable stretching the conversation or text to include a sexually suggestive joke or inappropriate photo. Add to that the fact that many employees working from home are doing so at odd hours, and sending texts, Slack messages, and emails sometimes into the wee hours of the morning. Less supervision and more access could be a dangerous combination. These virtual work settings mimic risk factors identified by the EEOC as common for sexual harassment – workers alone, in isolated workplaces, working late at night.

During the pandemic, these same risk factors were often present when workers ventured into the office or workplace. With flexible hours and shifts, few employees were actually physically present at one time, setting the stage again for a harasser to potentially stage an inappropriate encounter.

Servers Report More Sexual Harassment from Customers

Female restaurant workers were already among the highest in terms of sexual harassment complaints prior to the pandemic, but recent reports point to a worsening during COVID-19 even with fewer customers and employees present. In a December 2020 survey of food-service workers, 40% of tipped workers noted a change in unsolicited sexual comments from customers. Hundreds of female respondents spoke of instances involving a male customer asking a female worker to take off her mask so the customer could calibrate the server’s tip to her looks.

At Barrett & Farahany, we are happy to answer any questions about sexual harassment. If you or anyone you know is looking for answers, please contact us to speak to one of our attorneys.

by B&F Contributor

We’ve come a long way, baby, from first starting to work outside the home in the 19th century to present-day, when women are running boardrooms and holding some of the highest offices in our country. Along with this progression have come laws to support female advancement in the workforce and provide women with equal pay, protection from harassment and discrimination, and more.

Let’s take a look at seven laws that have had the greatest impact on working women.

• Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 – under the EPA, men and women doing substantially the same job in the same workplace must be equally paid. The law doesn’t just apply to salary or hourly wage, but also includes overtime, bonuses, stock options, benefits, vacation and holiday pay, and profit-sharing plans. When alleging a violation, one may file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or go straight to court. Efforts to close the ages-old gender pay gap ramped up during World War II, but it wasn’t until President Kennedy signed the EPA that pay equity became law.
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Title VII, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees, prohibits discrimination based on sex. It also protects women from sexual harassment in the workplace. The original law, passed in 1964, did not include women. Sex didn’t become a protected class under Title VII until 1967. Sexual discrimination is now afforded all the same remedies as other protected classes, including compensatory and punitive damages for intentional discrimination. 
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 – the PDA prohibits sex discrimination in employment and hiring on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to either. It applies to promotions, job assignments, layoffs, training, and other aspects of employment. The Act also requires companies that offer disability leave to temporarily disabled employees to extend the same policy to women who are temporarily disabled by pregnancy.
• Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 – whereas the PDA prohibited discrimination against pregnant women, it wasn’t until 1993 and the passage of the FMLA that certain female employees of qualifying employers were legally assured up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave for childbirth as well as caring for a newborn or adopted child.
• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 – as the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Obama, this act resets the two-year statute of limitations for an equal pay complaint with each new paycheck. Prior to the Act, the statute of limitations began with the first paycheck when unequal pay took place. If a woman had been unequally paid for three years but only found out about it with her most recent paycheck, she couldn’t file a claim under the old rules because the two-year statute had expired.
• The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 – the Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for up to one year following the birth of her child. The Act also requires employers to provide a shielded space, other than a bathroom, for women to express milk. The law applies to employers with 50 or more employees.
• Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 – in this legislation, Congress took the issue of sexual harassment and discrimination to the corporate tax return. For years, payments to settle sexual harassment claims have been considered a deductible business expense, even if they contained a nondisclosure agreement and remained a secret to the public and shareholders. In an effort toward more disclosure and clarity of sexual harassment and discrimination charges, the TCJA made settlements with nondisclosure agreements nondeductible.

At Barrett & Farahany, we are happy to answer any questions about equal pay, Title VII and sexual discrimination, policies toward pregnancy and childbirth, and other laws and gender-related issues primarily affecting women. If you or anyone you know is looking for answers, please contact us to speak to one of our attorneys.

by B&F Contributor

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) received a lot of attention for its third round of stimulus checks. As time has passed, however, it appears the continuation and expansion of emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) and expanded Family and Medical Leave (EFML) might have an even greater impact on some employees’ finances. This part of the ARPA is also referred to as the new Families First Coronavirus Response Act or FFCRA.

The provisions are not mandatory for employers, as they were with the original FFCRA, but companies that provide the benefits receive specific tax credits – hopefully, an incentive that many employers will take advantage of. If you work for a business with fewer than 500 employees that voluntarily provides the new FFCRA benefits, you could receive up to two weeks of additional paid sick leave and up to 12 weeks of paid family leave for pandemic-related reasons between April 1 and September 30. 

Extended Benefits for Employees

Here are specifics of the new FFCRA:

• 10-day limit on EPSL reset starting April 1 – between April 1 and September 30, employees are entitled to 10 new days (up to 80 hours) of EPSL, even if they used their allotment under the old FFCRA.
• ARPA adds three new qualifying reasons for EPSL – these include getting a COVID-19 vaccination; recovering from an illness, injury, or condition related to getting the vaccine; or getting or awaiting the results of a COVID-19 test because the employee was either exposed or asked by the employer to take a test.
• FFCRA original qualifying reasons still apply – an employee is eligible for EPSL if he or she is:
  • subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation
  • advised by a healthcare worker to self-quarantine
  • experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking medical attention
  • caring for an individual in quarantine
  • caring for a child whose school or care facility is closed due to the pandemic
  • experiencing substantially similar conditions
• Payments for EPSL differ depending on the reason for leave – employees receive either 100% of their pay (up to a maximum of $511 a day) or two-thirds of their regular rate (up to $200 per day) for the 10 days of qualifying sick leave.
• EFML can now be used for the same qualifying reasons as EPSL.
• New FFCRA eliminates the requirement that the first two weeks of EFML be unpaid – employees who qualify for EFML are now eligible for up to 12 weeks of paid leave rather than only 10 under the original FFCRA. Employees are paid at two-thirds of regular wages, up to a maximum of $200 per day, during those 12 weeks. This increases the total an employee can receive EFML from $10,000 to $12,000.
• ARPA includes non-discrimination rules – for both EPSL and EFML, employers cannot favor highly compensated employees, full-time employees, or any employee on the basis of tenure under the new FFCRA rules. Any employer that does so risks losing their tax credits.

What About Partial Benefits?

 Some areas of the new law are still unclear:

• Does EFML reset like EPSL? The law is not specific, but some government officials have speculated that it will.
• Can employers provide voluntary EPSL and not EFML? Or vice versa? Again, the law is not specific. Since the benefits are voluntary, this may be an option.
• Can employers provide partial expanded EPSL and EFML? Since the provisions are voluntary and the law is not specific, it seems that employers could offer six weeks or any amount.

Neither the Department of Labor nor the IRS, which sets the rules around resultant tax credits that employers receive when voluntarily offering the new FFCRA benefits, has come forward with guidance on these last three questions. Barrett & Farahany will keep you updated as the regulatory agencies release further details around the new FFCRA rules.

In the meantime, we at Barrett & Farahany is happy to answer any questions about the new FFCRA, EPSL, and EFML. If you or anyone you know is looking for answers, please contact us to speak to one of our attorneys.

by B&F Contributor

A year into the pandemic and the female workforce is suffering. Women have been leaving the workforce and losing jobs at higher rates than men due to a variety of pandemic-related factors. This departure creates a greater risk that the pay gap will widen and potentially heralds long-term negative effects on gender equity in the workplace.

Consider the facts: 

• 275,000 women left the U.S. labor force in January.
• As of that month, a total of 2.3 million women had left the U.S. workforce since the beginning of the pandemic, compared to 1.8 million men
• The percent of adult women either working or looking for work was down below 56% in February, compared to almost 58% prior to the pandemic.
• Median weekly earnings for women were 83.4% that of men in the fourth quarter of 2020.
• In September, women made up 39% of the global workforce but accounted for 54% of overall job losses.
• Since spring 2020, the percentage of working moms who had sole responsibility for childcare and schoolwork increased from 33% to 45%.
• One in four women are considering downshifting their careers or leaving the workforce due to the pressures brought on by the pandemic.

The pandemic has had a disproportionately negative effect on women in both hourly and salaried positions. Two main reasons accounting for this are: 

• Job losses are higher in sectors traditionally employing more women (particularly the retail, food services, arts, and social assistance fields, according to Vox).
• Women have taken on a disproportionately larger portion of childcare responsibilities as schools and childcare facilities closed or went virtual.

The Pay Penalty

Women’s departure from the workforce, either by choice or because their position was eliminated, risks widening the pay gap. Women tend to suffer a pay penalty of 7% on average for the same position when returning to work after a prolonged absence, according to a study by Payscale. As women prolong their reentry into the workforce, the risk that they will pay such a penalty as they return to equal jobs only rises.

In its global study on COVID-19 and gender equality, McKinsey & Co. expressed concern that without a concerted effort, the moves toward gender parity in the workforce could be reversed due to the pandemic. This risk affects not only women but also the global economy as a whole, noted McKinsey.

Positive Moves in Washington

While women in the workforce have suffered more than men as a result of the pandemic, the Biden administration is making moves to address the issues of gender equality and the pay gap. In early March, the president signed an executive order establishing a Gender Policy Council. Every cabinet secretary is required to participate with the Council.

Also, in January, Congress again introduced a Paycheck Fairness Act. The Act seeks to increase civil penalties for violations of equal pay provisions and addresses other wage discrimination issues based on sex. 

The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII, and other laws and regulations address harassment and inequality based on gender. At Barrett & Farahany, we are happy to answer any questions about equal pay, policies toward childcare, and other laws primarily affecting women and gender-related issues, particularly in light of COVID-19. If you or anyone you know is looking for answers, please contact us to speak to one of our attorneys.

by B&F Contributor

Social media can be a great place. You can join broad discussions, you can find humorous content, and you can share your thoughts with millions of people. That last part seems to get a lot of users in trouble. Celebrities garner the most attention when they say something out of line. TV host Wendy Williams issued two separate apologies for different offenses after voicing insensitive opinions. And singer Bryan Adams had to perform damage control after posting what many considered xenophobic remarks over his frustrations that the pandemic was canceling his concerts.

In those cases, both figures endured backlash before swiftly issuing apologies. Every day, people who aren’t celebrities post similar thoughts or share controversial opinions, just without the media spotlight. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think before you post. The next time you’re about to join a discussion on social media, ask if what you’re saying can affect things in real life, such as your job.

The short answer is yes. But like most things, there are nuances to the answer. Certain language is protected and cannot be used to justify consequences against you, such as termination. We’ll look at three examples of protected speech and three examples of things that can get you fired.

Protected

• You are allowed to vent about your working conditions or employment policies. It is your right to have an opinion about your job. You’re even allowed to complain about supervisors as long as you do it in a way that doesn’t harm the business.
• Exposing illegal activity at your company, such as discrimination or fraud, may be protected under whistleblower or anti-retaliation statutes. If you have more detailed questions about being a whistleblower, reach out to Barrett & Farahany today. 
• Your employer can’t legally fire you for protected activity just because they don’t like what you post. There has to be a specific and lawful reason, such as proof that your activity is hurting the company. 

Not Protected

• If you’re venting about work, what you’re posting needs to be work-related. You can’t personally attack or ridicule co-workers or managers for things like their looks or the way they speak.
• If you post content that damages the company, trivializes the services or products they offer, or exposes trade secrets or sensitive information, then you can lawfully be terminated. There is a difference between venting about work and tearing down the company image as a whole.
• Even though an employer can’t legally fire you for protected complaints about working conditions, they can fire you for posting inappropriate pictures or content that can damage the employer’s reputation. Anything from lewd to discriminatory language can be grounds for termination.

Social media has grown to be a part of our daily lives, but the legalities surrounding it are still relatively new. Winning a case comes down to having an experienced attorney who can identify the specific details that matter. Give yourself the best chance at winning by working with Barrett & Farahany. 

If you have questions or need consultation on an employment issue involving social media, contact us to see if we can help you.

by Kathy Harrington-Sullivan

For months, legal experts have been predicting a rash of age discrimination lawsuits stemming from layoffs or firings of older workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. While protected by law against age discrimination, older workers do often face issues in the workplace. Not surprisingly, the pandemic has proved to be a challenging time.

Ageism and COVID-19

When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been clear in stating that employers are prohibited by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) from involuntarily excluding older individuals from the workplace during the pandemic. This is true even if the action is out of concern for the older worker.

In light of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention findings that individuals age 65 and older are at higher risk for a severe case of COVID-19, the EEOC has encouraged employers to be more flexible with workers in this age group. Despite this encouragement, older employees are not due accommodations just because of their age. ADEA prohibits firing, harassment, and other discriminatory practices based on age but does not allow for accommodations similar to those provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to other protected characteristics, such as disability and certain conditions related to pregnancy.

Older employees may not be singled out for vaccine mandates by their employer. While EEOC guidance has clarified that employers may mandate all employees get a COVID-19 vaccine, except for those seeking religious or disability accommodations, the agency did not clear the way for employers to insist that only older workers be vaccinated.

Age Discrimination Settlements 

While not related to COVID-19, the EEOC has settled lawsuits in the last two months in favor of older workers. These settlements are positive signs for fighting ageism in pandemic times. 

Here are a few of the recent settlements: 

• Computer Sciences Corporation, a large technology consulting firm, will pay $700,000 in lost wages and damages to former employees who were let go as part of a series of layoffs that targeted workers aged 40 and older. In addition, the CEO of CSC’s parent company will issue a statement to all employees that age discrimination will not be tolerated. The company must also revise its layoff procedures to ensure they are in compliance with laws protecting older workers.
• United Precision Products, an aerospace components manufacturer, will pay $60,000 to a former applicant who at age 64 was asked for his age, date of high school graduation, and driver’s license in a pre-employment interview. The company then refused to hire the applicant. In addition to providing monetary relief, United Precision will have to provide training on the ADEA and revise its discrimination policy.
• Hennepin Healthcare System in Minnesota will revise its employment practices to eliminate what was called a Late Career Practitioner Policy. In violation of the ADEA and Americans with Disabilities Act, the policy required workers aged 70 and older to undergo age-related screenings and medical exams. Affected employees will receive monetary relief as well as reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to the exams.

We at Barrett & Farahany hope you are staying safe and healthy. If you have questions about age discrimination in the workplace, about policies related to older employees, particularly in light of COVID-19, or about the ADEA and other laws that protect older workers, please don’t hesitate to reach out. One of our experienced attorneys would be happy to help.

by Kathy Harrington-Sullivan

There’s an adage that individuals get wiser as they get older, but that saying doesn’t help when it comes to older individuals keeping their jobs in downtimes. While federal law prohibits age discrimination in employee terminations, age-related firings increase by 3.4% for each percentage point increase in a state’s unemployment rate, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research

Older employees who have been in the workplace for longer, and have accumulated years of raises resulting in higher pay, might be the target of a layoff or effort to reduce overall salaries. If a supervisor made derogatory remarks about an employee’s age, or referenced wanting to bring in younger, cheaper workers to perform the same duties, a terminated older worker might actually have been the victim of age discrimination.

Laws that Protect Older Workers

Firing based on advanced age alone is against the law, but unlike other protected characteristics such as race and sex, age is not covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are not required to offer accommodations related to age. In current times, that means if an older employee asks to work from home to avoid exposure to COVID-19 and its greater risk to persons of a certain age, an employer does not have to accommodate that request. At the same time, an employer cannot fire an older worker when reducing a workforce due to pandemic changes in business just because of that person’s age and COVID-19 age-related risks

Older employees are instead protected mainly by two federal laws. The first, Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), forbids discrimination and harassment based on an individual’s age. The ADEA applies to individuals who are age 40 or older working in businesses with 20 or more employees. The ADEA prohibits employers from discriminating against an older worker in any aspect of employment, including firing, hiring, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

In 1990, Congress passed the second law, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), which amends the ADEA and protects older workers who have been fired. Under the OWBPA, it is illegal for employers to require older workers to sign a waiver of their rights to sue for age discrimination. Under the OWBPA:

• Older workers must be given at least 21 days to decide whether to sign a waiver.
• The waiver has to be written in understandable language.
• The employer must offer something of value over and above what is already owed, such as severance pay, in exchange for a signature. 

The OWBPA also prohibits age discrimination in benefits. This law generally requires employers to provide equal benefits to older and younger workers. The law applies to health insurance, life insurance, disability benefits, and retirement plans.

Age Discrimination in Hiring and Other Practices

It’s important for older workers to recognize other aspects of the ADEA to make sure they are not being discriminated against for their age. These include

• Employment notices or ads – it’s generally illegal for employment ads to specify age preferences or limitations. An ad that seeks applicants “ages 25 to 35,” for example, would be considered unlawful under the ADEA. On the flip side, it’s okay for a business to specify a preference for candidates who are retirees or who are over age 50.
• Bonafide occupational qualification (BFOQ) – a BFOQ means that an age limitation is necessary for a person to perform the duties of a job is. It is generally lawful. An example of a BFOQ would be a production company seeking an actor of a particular age to play a teenager.
• Harassment – ADEA prohibits the harassment of an individual because they are age 40 or older. This can include offensive remarks about a person’s age. If the remarks create a hostile or offensive work environment, it violates the ADEA. The harasser can be a supervisor, co-worker, or even a contract employee.
• Employment policies and practices– an employment practice can be considered illegal under ADEA if it has a negative impact on employees or applicants age 40 or older– even if the practice is equally applied to all employees or job applicants. For example, a general criterion such as flexibility could be subject to age-based stereotyping, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

If you believe you were terminated or discriminated against because of your age, we might be able to help you seek the compensation you deserve. Contact us to discuss the specifics of your situation.

By Joshua Parkhurst

The United States is the only western nation that does not ensure that workers receive paid family leave to deal with a family illness, a newborn child, or other family health matters.  The Family and Medical Leave Act has given workers a modicum of protection from losing their job if they need to take such leave.  The Family Medical Leave Act, however, provides only 12 weeks of unpaid leave.  Many workers who need to take such leave do not do so because they cannot afford to go without income during their leave period. As the past year has demonstrated, caregiving responsibilities disproportionately fall on women and women of color leaving many to choose between their jobs and loved ones.

President Biden’s recently introduced American Families Plan is a big step in the right direction. The plan aims create a national comprehensive paid family and medical leave program paying workers up to $4,000 a month. Under that cap, it would replace a minimum of two-thirds of average weekly wages, rising to 80 percent for the lowest-wage workers.

It is imperative that Congress prioritize paid family leave as it takes up consideration of President Biden’s proposal. The plan will be the subject of much debate and discussion over the next few months.  We understand that members of Congress will have competing concerns about the total cost of any plan, and the numerous important measures relating to education, child tax credits, climate change, and several other proposals.

We support a robust American Families Plan that addresses all of these vital concerns.  Please call your elected representatives and ask that they place a high priority on expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act to include paid family leave.  

In our inaugural year as a political action committee, Stand Up For Workers donated and raised over $170,000 in key contested Senate races in 2020 that were critical to turning the Senate blue. SU4W supported 14 senatorial candidates, including Senators Hickenlooper (CO), Mark Kelly (AZ), Ben Lujan (NM), Gary Peters (MI), Jon Ossoff (GA), and Rafael Warnock (GA). Prior to the Georgia runoff election, we raised over $80,000 for the campaigns of Sens. Ossoff and Warnock. With the key partnerships we built last year, we are working hard to ensure that workers’ rights are front and center for our elected leaders in Congress.  

Other candidates that SU4W supported in 2020 include Barbara Bollier (KS), Steve Bullock (MT), Cal Cunningham (NC), Mike Epsy (MS), Sara Gideon (ME), Theresa Greenfield (IA), Jaime Harrison (SC), and Doug Jones (AL).