BY SARAH STEPHEN
"Women should be home taking care of their husbands and children, chained to the stove, not working in my stores." This sentiment may have been commonly expressed in the 1950s, but the statement is recent, and comes from the supervisor of a large retail store in the United States.
J. Ernest Talley, chairperson of Rent-A-Center, a rent-to-own store, didn't want women working there when he took over the company in 1998. Many witnesses have described him articulating an anti-female policy: "A woman's place is not in my stores", "Women don't belong in rent-to-own" and "Get rid of women any way you can".
Under Talley's management, the proportion of women in the work force fell from 21.8% of employees to 9.8% by September 1999. The company allegedly eliminated job classifications held by women, imposed a weight-lifting requirement unrelated to actual job requirements, harassed and unfairly disciplined female employees, assigned women cleaning and clerical duties, demoted and failed to promote women and discharged women or forced them to resign. Rent-A-Center also discouraged women from applying for jobs and rejected them when they did apply.
A series of anti-discrimination law-suits have been filed against the company throughout the US.
A San Francisco court has approved a settlement granting 1200 women who applied for jobs at the company US$2 million in damages. The job applicants were given a questionnaire which asked about their bodily functions and religious viewpoints, including true-or-false questions such as: "I have never indulged in any unusual sexual practices", and "I am very strongly attracted by members of my own sex". The company will stop administering the test as part of the settlement.
A Kansas City court approved a tentative settlement amount of US$12.25 million for 12 women in November. The judge also allowed Rent-A-Center to send letters to any women who worked for, or had sought employment at, the company offering them a settlement of US$500-$7000.
The settlement, however, will be paid in exchange for giving up all claims, including those being made in other cities. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is opposing the tentative settlement, concerned that it could jeopardise the success of other pending cases against the company.
One such case in an Illinois court involves more than 4600 former employees, including one who claims she was fired because she was pregnant, and another who was allegedly called back to work during her pregnancy by a manager who asked her doctor to induce the birth. Witnesses recounted statements of store managers and company executives: "You can do the vacuuming because that's a woman's job" and "The day I hire a woman will be a cold day in hell." The women are seeking damages of US$410 million.
More information can be obtained from .
From 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly, January 16, 2002.
Visit the