Dads and Moms Beat the Boss in Court

Aug. 29, 2002 -- H. Kevin Knussman, a retired 23-year-veteran of the Maryland State Police, used to fly as the sole paramedic in evacuation helicopters. Now, he spends his days taking his two daughters to school and soccer practice.

Trying to combine these two passions — working and parenting — led Knussman to launch and ultimately win a legal battle against the state of Maryland for denying him parental leave because of his gender.

Knussman's legal battle began when he wanted several weeks of leave in 1994 to help care for his newborn daughter and wife, who had developed dangerous complications with her pregnancy. A personnel manager told him only women qualified for parental leave.

"Until I could breast feed a baby, there was no way I could be the primary care provider," Knussman said he was told. "She further clarified that I might qualify if my wife were in a coma or dead."

That exchange inspired Knussman's lawsuit alleging the state police violated the federal Family and Medical Leave Act by denying him leave. He was granted a victory on Tuesday when a federal judge ordered the Maryland State Police to pay Knussman more than $665,000 in damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Knussman's case seems to be part of a larger trend in gender discrimination law — mothers and fathers who are challenging what they perceive as bias on the job due to family care responsibilities. On Wednesday, an American University report detailed roughly 20 similar cases in recent years that resulted in damage awards for plaintiffs as high as $3 million, and the co-author said the emerging trend should make employers take notice.

Employer: 'Who's Home Cooking?'

"Employers need to carefully consider whether bias against mothers exists and whether they are offering flexible work arrangements to mothers and fathers," said Joan Williams, a professor and director of a gender, work and family law program at American University in Washington, D.C. "The clearest message to employers is the best defense against this kind of lawsuit is a family-friendly workplace."

The report, called "The New Glass Ceiling: Mothers and Fathers Sue for Discrimination," outlines what it called "remarkably frank and open statements by employers reflecting the view that mothers don't belong in the workplace, and that fathers don't belong in the traditionally feminine role of family caregiver."

In one case, Nilsa Santiago-Ramos, who at one time was the only woman among four top executives of telecommunications company Centennial P.R. Wireless Corporation, alleged that her direct supervisor questioned her ability to manage work and family responsibilities, even asking how her husband managed with her not home to cook for him.

In another incident, Santiago-Ramos says her supervisor developed a job profile of employees the company should not hire. He included older persons with heavy non-work commitments, married women and women with children, she said.

Santiago-Ramos was eventually fired, and she later sued alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was settled for an undisclosed sum.

Now, Santiago-Ramos says she resents the implication that good parents cannot also be good employees.

"I worked very hard to get where I was," Santiago-Ramos said. "I went to school at night, I have two daughters, and this stereotyping must stop."

Parents Not Protected Class

Not everyone supports the trend of parental discrimination litigation. Curt A. Levey, director of legal and public affairs of the Center for Individual Rights, a public-interest law firm in Washington, points out that parents are not among the classes protected by federal law and the Constitution.

Discriminating against parents may be unfortunate, Levey said, but is not forbidden by law. "They want to use innovative ways to use innovative statutes and common law. To me, 'innovative' is a way for plaintiff's attorneys to expand the bases for lawsuits," he said.

Further, Levey said, there are some legitimate reasons for employers to discriminate against parents.

"Let's be real. When you make a decision to have children or are a primary caregiver, you are making a decision about priorities," he said. "Employers should be entitled [to discriminate] as long as it is not a ruse for gender discrimination."

Bias against parents on the job, though, is often based on a faulty perception that parents, especially mothers, are less productive than childless workers, Williams said. However, she said that evidence suggests parents do the same work — they are just perceived differently.

The 'Go-Getter' Myth

An upcoming study to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that while "businesswomen" were rated as similar in competence to "businessmen" or "millionaires," women who became mothers were rated as similar in competence to the "elderly," "blind," "retarded," and "disabled."

This stereotyping of mothers feeds discrimination in the workplace and perpetuates the myth of the "go-getter" as the ultimate worker, Williams said.

"The issue here is, what do you mean by productivity? [The word go-getter] confuses two distinct things, whether someone can work a long schedule with whether they can do good work," she said.

As long as the "go-getter" myth prevails in the workplace, Williams said, "you will have a system that penalizes conscientious parents, male and female, that have goals and dreams other than work."