Female Firefighters Discriminated Against Gender is a part of everyday life with so much related to it based on stereotypes, customs, and ideas, learned from birth. This case study peers into gender discrimination by first providing a little historical background information. Next, it delves into an analysis of a case, Wedow, et al. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, 442 F.3d 441 (U.S. App., 2006), and the Court’s opinion, by examining the pertinent facts of the case, highlighting the legal issues and evaluating the rules to apply, and relating the rules to the facts. As evidenced below, women’s roles, established long before the forming of the United States and maintained through their entrance into the workplace, led to very strong beliefs,
…show more content…
Supreme Court held some old beliefs during a case, Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 21 L. Ed. 442 (1872), where the court refused to grant Myra Bradwell a license to practice law in Illinois (Sex Discrimination, n.d.). As seen, their decision indicates the strength of cultural stereotypes even for Justices upholding the Constitution. Although ideals regarding the role of women were overpowering, the court esteemed laws aimed at protecting women in the workplace, seen in the landmark case, Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S. Ct. 324, 52 L. Ed. 551 (1908) (Sex Discrimination, n.d.). The court upheld Oregon’s law, forbids women’s employment over ten hours a day, where the court’s opinion explained possible injury results from long work hours on women. During World War II, more and more women entered the workforce, showing they have the ability to do a man’s work, although the jobs returned to the men when they returned home. Employers fired the women, but not before stirring traditional assumptions about women (Sex Discrimination, n.d.). While various laws protect against sex discrimination, it continues in the …show more content…
This is a case of gender discrimination according to Title VII. First, firefighters procure two sets of protective gear, regarded to fit properly to protect against injury during firefighting, such as smoke, chemicals, and heat. The gear needs to allow mobility while wore during fires. The plaintiffs acquired one set of male gear, too large, which caused articles to fall off, prevented the plaintiffs from grasping the hose or ladder rungs, or lacked proper closure to protect them. The City claimed the gear tailored for women was too expensive, and both, males and females, receive the same male-size gear issued to both, men and women. The City’s authorized vendors did not sell gear to fit women. After finding another vendor with gender-appropriate gear, the City still refused to procure it. After eight years of complaints, Ms. Kline finally obtained one set of female gear, and Ms. Wedow secured only one pair of female pants. All firefighters need two sets for health reasons (Wedow, et al. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri,
Supreme Court held some old beliefs during a case, Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 21 L. Ed. 442 (1872), where the court refused to grant Myra Bradwell a license to practice law in Illinois (Sex Discrimination, n.d.). As seen, their decision indicates the strength of cultural stereotypes even for Justices upholding the Constitution. Although ideals regarding the role of women were overpowering, the court esteemed laws aimed at protecting women in the workplace, seen in the landmark case, Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412, 28 S. Ct. 324, 52 L. Ed. 551 (1908) (Sex Discrimination, n.d.). The court upheld Oregon’s law, forbids women’s employment over ten hours a day, where the court’s opinion explained possible injury results from long work hours on women. During World War II, more and more women entered the workforce, showing they have the ability to do a man’s work, although the jobs returned to the men when they returned home. Employers fired the women, but not before stirring traditional assumptions about women (Sex Discrimination, n.d.). While various laws protect against sex discrimination, it continues in the …show more content…
This is a case of gender discrimination according to Title VII. First, firefighters procure two sets of protective gear, regarded to fit properly to protect against injury during firefighting, such as smoke, chemicals, and heat. The gear needs to allow mobility while wore during fires. The plaintiffs acquired one set of male gear, too large, which caused articles to fall off, prevented the plaintiffs from grasping the hose or ladder rungs, or lacked proper closure to protect them. The City claimed the gear tailored for women was too expensive, and both, males and females, receive the same male-size gear issued to both, men and women. The City’s authorized vendors did not sell gear to fit women. After finding another vendor with gender-appropriate gear, the City still refused to procure it. After eight years of complaints, Ms. Kline finally obtained one set of female gear, and Ms. Wedow secured only one pair of female pants. All firefighters need two sets for health reasons (Wedow, et al. v. City of Kansas City, Missouri,