Women’s History and the Case of the EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Article Review Example

“This case in history pA brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource.ppppresents an interview with Rosalind Rosenberg, a historian who testified on behalf of Sears, Roebuck and Company in its defence against sex discrimination charges made by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. The case for [1]Women’s History and EEOC v. Sears: Disparity or Discrimination? [2]EEOC v Sears, Roebuck and Company gave rise to one of the largest litigations in 1984 with respect to women’s rights and discrimination. The author of this article was asked to testify for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Supposedly there was a historian testifying for Sears Roebuck Company and EEOC needed a witness for rebuttal of the other historian’s testimony. They further stated that Sear’s was stating they were not guilty of discrimination because women do not like to work for commission. The author stated he did not agree with the defence of not liking commission as a legitimate defence for Sears Company. If the equation of ‘interests by gender’ was consider in this evaluation then the fight for Women’s Equal Rights would have been in vain.

Professor Rosenberg and Kessler-Harris stood on two opposite sides of the court battle with the EEOC v Sears case. They examined past and present behaviours of minimum wage working women with relation to the courts. “In 1979 the EEOC commenced a separate second suit of sex and racial discrimination against Sears Company which went to trial in Chicago, Illinois in September 1984 in the town where Sears headquarters laid.”[3] The race issue was resolved under mediation and arbitration but the sexual discrimination suit went to trial as mentioned above and with the Plaintiff stating that Sears was guilty of discrimination of women with regards to high prolific and high paying commission jobs and further some women were paid less wages than men within management.

The third article Women’s History and the Sears Case gives rise to consideration if it is in the best interest of women to be treated equally as men without regard to social and cultural differences. When examining both perspectives luxury is not often considered. There was much dissention when pregnancy was labelled a disability and women declared the right to be treated equal whilst pregnant. [4]“Judge John A. Norberg decided in favour of Sears that there was no discrimination.” The EEOC has appealed the case. Sears defence was based on the allegation that women were not discriminated for higher paying and higher prolific jobs based on the theory that it was women’s choice to pass on these positions. Because the two historians differed in their presentation at court the judge ruled primarily on the laws of discrimination and right to chose.

In the final article Women’s History Goes to Trial: EEOC v Sears Roebuck and Company, it was distinguished that there the case gave rise to future implications of affirmative action for women across the United States and even the world. [5]“It has been theorized that a part of the Sears questions in the case gave rise to an abuse of history because policy makers attempted to make historians politically liable for their actions or lack of actions with regards to affirmative action issues.”

Strictly based on these four articles women’s rights have not changed during these times as much as they could have been promoted. According to the judgment of the trial Sears Roebuck Company was found not guilty of infringing women’s rights which was quite ambiguous but not contrary to those times where civil rights and human rights were not strictly enforced. How can a judge rule that it was the discretion of an employee or employees to not receive equal payment of commission but rule the Company was in violation of sexual discriminatory acts with relation to employment and employment advancements? This still puzzles me! New directions of research should be based on direct historical background of social and cultural development but should strictly emphasize the law with relation to protection of our human rights. Women’s rights as well as other minority groups are often infringed in minor ways such as being propositioned by men against their will or being offered less than the average starting average that a man would start the same job at. The key is to proving the existence of discrimination occurred and it appears the EEOC had trouble doing so because there was obvious testimony that some of the women were not in favour of commissioned pay. The whole commission pay scenario was misconstrued to be interpreted the way the courts and Sears chose to interpret it rather than the fact that discretion to pay wage should not be allowed, rather mandated straight across the board for people doing the same job at the same company (assuming they have equal education and experience).

The purpose of the writing Women’s History and EEOC v. Sears: Disparity or Discrimination was the starting point of civil rights for women in America. The historian proved that if ‘exclusion by gender’ were allowed as a defence for Sears Company that would set precedence for all future litigations against sexual discrimination in the workplace with regards to protecting women’s right to work laws. The purpose of the second article showed the courts would have some leniency for discretion of racial discrimination but would absolutely not allow any leniency for allegations of sexual discrimination in the workforce. The purpose of the third article Women’s History and the Sears Case gave rise to differing points of views on racial and gender discrimination with relation to disability such as pregnancy. The ‘choice theory’ played a part in this decision that women had a choice whether to accept lower paying positions of the same calibre with relation to men as competitors for the same positions. This was a pure infringement of a woman’s right to work with relation to equal rights. I do not know what judicial basis the judge found to rule as such except by using his discretionary powers of the judgeship. In those days discrimination laid ramped and there were situations that just were not touched by the judges. There is much more coherence with the law now because there are precedence and case statutes to speak from with relation to allegations of infringements. Under Section 6.1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the United Kingdom a person would be able to bring action for employment discrimination based on gender or race and win according to the facts presented in the above three cases. The fourth article Women’s History Goes to Trial: EEOC v Sears Roebuck and Company the courts attempted to push off their duties to historians to set precedence in legislature holding that historian views were just as liable for political and legal decisions with relation to affirmative action. This gave rise to much affirmative action review in the future cases of the EEOC and discrimination.

“Combatants in conflicts, like in Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, and Rwanda, have raped women as a weapon of war without consequence. Men in Pakistan, South Africa, Peru, Russia, and Uzbekistan beat women in the home at astounding rates. Women from Ukraine, Moldova, Nigeria, the Dominican Republic, Burma, and Thailand are bought and sold, trafficked to work in forced prostitution. In Guatemala, South Africa, and Mexico, women’s ability to enter and remain in the work force is obstructed. In the U.S., students discriminate against and attack girls in school who are lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender, or do not conform to male standards of female behaviour. Women in Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia face government-sponsored discrimination that renders them unequal before the law.”[6] For ages women have suffered relentless discrimination at the hands of militia, men, husbands, companies and patrons. “The realization of women’s rights is a global struggle based on universal human rights and the rule of law. It requires all of us to unite in solidarity to end traditions, practices, and laws that harm women. It is a fight for freedom to be fully and completely human and equal without apology or permission. Ultimately, the struggle for women’s human rights must be about making women’s lives matter everywhere all the time. In practice, this means taking action to stop discrimination and violence against women.”[7]

Women have suffered pre-employment discrimination, firing, hiring, job classification, benefits, pay and sexual harassment discrimination in the work place for many years and fought hard to overcome this burden. “The federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in the workplace is Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII applies to private employers, state and local government employers, labour organizations, employment agencies, and joint employer-union apprenticeship programs with 15 or more employees.”[8] If you are a woman and fell your rights have been infringed in any way the best way to combat this situation is to see your union representative if are represented by a union, keep a paper trail by keeping great and concise notes of all situations relating to the alleged discriminatory act, review your personnel file and when you are ready file a discrimination grievance and/or suit against the company through the union and/or EEOC.

I would recommend these four articles only as a basis to learn of simplistic history of case law relating to women’s right to work and work place discrimination. However these articles are not most informative on other actions women could have taken because the law possessed little to no uniformity in those days. This paper could have been better presented with contrasting views of the history of women’s equal rights and how modern case law has established solid work law rights for women.

References

Women’s History and EEOC v. Sears: Disparity or Discrimination? (1987) Retrieved November 29, 2009 from, http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ360221&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ360221

[1] Women’s History and EEOC v. Sears: Disparity or Discrimination?

[1] EEOC v Sears, Roebuck and Company

[1] History in the Courtroom: The Sears Case Perspective

[1] Women’s History and EEOC v. Sears: Disparity or Discrimination?

[1] Women’s History Goes to Trial: EEOC v Sears Roebuck

[1] Background Discrimination against Women (2007).

[1] Background Discrimination against Women (2007).

[1] Know your Rights: Sex Discrimination

[1] Women’s History and EEOC v. Sears: Disparity or Discrimination?

[2] EEOC v Sears, Roebuck and Company

[3] History in the Courtroom: The Sears Case Perspective

[4] Women’s History and EEOC v. Sears: Disparity or Discrimination?

[5] Women’s History Goes to Trial: EEOC v Sears Roebuck

[6] Background Discrimination against Women (2007).

[7] Background Discrimination against Women (2007).

[8] Know your Rights: Sex Discrimination