I DISCRIMINATE. SO DO YOU. SO DOES everyone, every day, on all sorts of topics. When I make a choice that it is healthier for me to eat a six-pack of sushi than a six-pack of hamburgers from a fast food drive-thru, it is a discriminatory act. When I choose to go to Wild Oats over Albertsons because I think that their sushi packs are better, it is a discriminatory act.
Ice cream tastes better than frozen yogurt, Lexus is better than BMW and educated people are more interesting to me than uneducated ones.
Sports talk is profoundly boring to me, but I can discuss marketing and business plans all day long. A life without the responsibilities of children is freer to me than the rigors of schools, sports, birthday parties and endless illnesses that come with kids.
I’ve made choices, you’ve made choices, we all make choices. Those choices affect our lives in sometimes minor ways, and sometimes major ways. The more sushi I eat, the less I weigh. The more I work, the more money I bring home.
The freedom to choose how I live my life is a fundamental right, and no one should be told how to live their life. But that does not mean that I am free from the consequences of those choices. I have to pay the price for the choices in my life.
Our state senator, Sheila Kuehl, of whom I am generally a big fan, has introduced legislation that has passed the Senate and goes to the Assembly, which will bar employers from discriminating against people who have family responsibilities in hiring and promotions. This is dangerous territory for legislation to encroach upon.
Currently the Fair Employment and Housing Act, quoting from SB836, “protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age or sexual orientation.”
That’s a long list of protected categories. Most of those 12 protected categories are beyond a person’s ability to control or influence, and I think that barring discrimination based on those is appropriate. A person should not be discriminated against because they are born Albanian or because they believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world. A woman should have the same opportunities to be in management as a man, and be paid equally for that job.
But thanks to the changing demographics of our world, and the fact that many people are now having to raise their kids as a single parent, or care for their parents as they age, careers are now being impacted as a result. As someone who took care of my mother for the last years of her life, I know about the conflicts and concerns of taking care of family versus career.
Perhaps that is why I find the Senators’ proposed amendment to the Code so hard to swallow.It might also be because I have two companies, and look at things from the perspective not only of the employee, but also of the employer. As an employer, it is hard enough right now to stay within the boundaries of what is legal, let alone fiscally acceptable.
The proposed change to the law seems small, adding a protected category. Its motivations are certainly high-minded. No one wants to have to make the choice between family and career. Choosing to take care of mom at home versus a nursing home is a heartrending choice. But the fact is, it will impact one’s ability to work longer hours. It will impact one’s emotional resources. And its’ impact will be felt not just on the one worker who chooses to increase their family responsibilities with children, or who cares for an aging parent, but it also increases the work that must be spread around to co-workers; or it means that the employer must hire an additional staff member to pick up the slack, which affects the bottom line, and that affects year-end bonuses.
The fact is that choices have consequences. We all must live with them. Trying to legislate away consequences is just not something that we can live with, however. As much as I empathize with people who “sacrifice to have kids” or “are giving back to my parents,” as an employer, I should be allowed to recognize that someone who is devoted to their family simply cannot be as devoted to their job as someone who is free of those responsibilities.
DAVID PISARRA is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica firm of Pisarra & Grist. He or (310) 664-9969.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 5, 2007. Read the original PDF.