# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.

Discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. For more information about LGBTQ+-related sex discrimination claims, see Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination.

Sex Discrimination & Work Situations

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

Sex Discrimination Harassment

It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy. Harassment can include "sexual harassment" such as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both the victim and the harasser may be any sex, and the victim and harasser may be the same sex or a different sex.

Although the law doesn't prohibit minor teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not frequent or serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, a subordinate, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Sex Discrimination & Employment Policies/Practices

An employment policy or practice that applies to everyone, regardless of sex, can be illegal if it has a negative impact on the employment of people of a certain sex and is not job-related or necessary to the operation of the business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy. Discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Discrimination: Crash Course Government and Politics #31

# data[].attributes.headline
What the government did in the past and what they are doing now to make it happen

# data[].attributes.subject
What the government did in the past and what they are doing now to make it happen

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are many reasons that Republicans and conservative activists love Donald Trump, but among the top must be that he makes it much easier for them to enact their wildly unpopular agenda. Trump's all-consuming ability to grab the headlines and dominate news coverage creates an opportunity for the far right to push for its regressive agenda, safe in the knowledge that such efforts (understandably) will get little attention from a media addicted to the Trump Show.

Nowhere is this more obvious than when it comes to the conservative battle to make sex discrimination legal. This fight is a particularly difficult one for the right, politically speaking. While Americans still cling to sexist gender roles at home, overwhelming majorities believe that sex discrimination in public spaces should be illegal. So conservative activists are turning to their favorite weapons - bad faith and distraction - to advance an agenda of gender inequality.

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to analyze the possibility of amending the U.S. Constitution so that it explicitly bars discrimination based on sex. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) simply states that that equal rights cannot be denied "on account of sex." It was first introduced in 1923, but ratification of it became a serious issue in the 1970s, when feminist activists began convincing states to ratify it. They got famously and tantalizingly close, falling just three states short of ratification before hitting a 1982 deadline created by Congress.

While many have long assumed the ERA is forever dead, like Jon Snow, it's rising again. Two more states have ratified the amendment and now activists are arguing that the deadline set by Congress in the 70s is invalid, since the Constitution doesn't give Congress that power. Tuesday's hearing was focused on this question: If a 38th state ratifies the ERA, what can and should happen next?

"A few years ago, a great woman, a great person, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was asked in an interview what amendment she would most like to see added to the United States Constitution," said Rep. Stephen Cohen, D-Tenn., during his opening remarks at Tuesday's hearing. "She answered it would be the Equal Rights Amendment."

But while conservative activists' efforts have largely flown under the radar, it's safe to say they have pulled out all the stops in their fight to keep the ERA out of the Constitution, and in fact to roll back existing protections against sex discrimination that progressives have already secured.

One flank of the attack is focused on the states. A number of state legislatures are looking at the possibility of becoming the 38th (and deciding) state to ratify the ERA, and in every case legislators are being swarmed by right-wing activists who don't hesitate to use deceit and hysteria to stop this from happening.

In April in Missouri, anti-feminist activists leaned heavily on Republican legislators, using the scare word "abortion" in order to stoke opposition to equal rights. And sure enough, the Republican leader of the state Senate, Dave Schatz, came out against the ERA, saying that the "majority of this [amendment] is about abortion" and claiming that Jesus would oppose it. (Jesus' known positions on issues of human equality would suggest otherwise.)

Virginia came within a hair of ratifying the ERA, but because the 2017 state elections were so close that the Republicans literally held their legislative majority by a coin toss, the ratification was killed. Once again, anti-abortion hysterics played a major role in the fight, with conservatives falsely accusing Democrats of wanting to legalize infanticide, all as part of a sexist campaign to demonize any effort to secure equality for women.

Even during Tuesday's federal congressional hearing, Republicans were at it again. Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., warned that "the people's right to protect the unborn would be eliminated if the ERA was to pass," and argued that women's equality should not be enshrined in the Constitution lest it damage the ability of conservatives to meddle in women's medical care access.

But, as Kamala Lopez of Equal Means Equal and legal expert Wendy Murphy told Salon, the legislative fights are only part of the picture. They expressed concern about a series of cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear that are billed as LGBTQ cases in the media, but, legally speaking, are also about the issue of sex discrimination.

The three cases, which will be bundled into one before the Supreme Court, all involve LGBTQ workers being fired for their identity. In two cases, the workers were fired for being gay and in the third, a woman was fired for being trans. The court is expected to examine whether or not these firings constitute sex discrimination that violates both state laws and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The pro-LGBTQ side is arguing that this case is covered by a precedent set in 1988, when the Supreme Court decided it was a form of illegal sex discrimination to penalize employees for failing to perform their gender in a way that pleases their bosses. In that case, a woman was able to successfully argue that her employer had discriminated against her by denying her a promotion unless she learned to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear makeup, have her hair styled and wear jewelry." Forcing employees to conform to gender stereotypes, the court decided, was in itself a form of sex discrimination.

LGBTQ advocates argue that if employers expect employees to be straight, or to adhere to a gender identity assigned at birth, that is a form of gender stereotyping that should, under this precedent, be illegal. Many feminist legal experts worry that if the court rules against the LGBTQ employees in these cases, it will not only set back LGBTQ rights but will also make it easier to discriminate against women on a much larger scale.

"These cases are designed to strike at the very heart of the law's understanding of what it means to discriminate against someone because of their sex or their gender," Imani Gandy, a legal expert at Rewire, explained in a recent "Boom! Lawyered" podcast. She goes on to note that a hostile decision in this case could lead to "firing a gay man for not being sufficiently 'macho'" or to employers paying women less "because of a belief that men should be the heads of households."

(Full disclosure: My partner, Marc Faletti, is executive producer of the "Boom! Lawyered" podcast.)

As Murphy explained in a follow-up email to Salon, she believes part of the reason the Supreme Court is taking the case now is part of a conservative divide-and-conquer strategy. Unfortunately, some feminist organizations have been reluctant to back a robust definition of "sex discrimination" that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. So these cases create an opportunity to chip away at progressive solidarity between these causes and weaken the movement against sex discrimination overall.

Whether in the courts or the legislatures, the right is pursuing an elaborate strategy to attack women's equality and preserve sex discrimination by coming at the issue sideways. Instead of flatly admitting to opposing women's legal equality, conservatives are hiding behind more provocative or "controversial" issues such as abortion rights or trans rights, which are less politically popular than the ERA, as a way of derailing efforts to fight sex discrimination.

Conservatives also know they have to move fast. Support for both abortion rights and LGBTQ equality are rising, making it harder to exploit the controversies around both to undermine women's equality. That's why the right is seizing this moment to step up efforts to stop the ERA and undermine existing protections against sex discrimination. Anti-equality activists understand they might not have another chance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Republicans want to make sex discrimination legal - and they're moving fast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many reasons that Republicans and conservative activists love Donald Trump, but among the top must be that he makes it much easier for them to enact their wildly unpopular agenda.

# data[].attributes.headline
Specifically, men see's women as women on magazines as porns not wanting for the sportwear.

# data[].attributes.subject
Specifically, men see's women as women on magazines as porns not wanting for the sportwear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The newest kid on the women's sports block is finding that the old formula for attention-getting is as robust as ever. 'Sex sells,' says Atlanta Beat defender Nancy Augustyniak, who was astonished to learn she finished third in a Playboy.com poll of the sexiest female soccer players." -Wendy Parker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Last winter, champion alpine skier Lindsey Vonn won the downhill gold medal at the Vancouver Winter Olympics, the first American woman to achieve gold in this prestigious event. From 2008 to 2010, Vonn also won three consecutive World Cup championships, the first US woman and second woman ever to accomplish such a feat. For her unprecedented achievements, Vonn was named Sportswoman of the Year by the US Olympic Committee.

Even Sports Illustrated-notorious for its lack of coverage of women's sports-couldn't ignore this historic moment and devoted its cover to Vonn. SI 's cover, however, blatantly portrayed Vonn as a sex object and spoke volumes about the rampant sexual depictions of women athletes. Rather than emphasize her singular athletic talent, the magazine depicted Vonn in a posed photograph, smiling at the camera in her ski regalia. What was most noticeable-and controversial-about the pose was its phallic nature: Vonn's backside was arched at a forty-five-degree angle while superimposed over a mountain peak. Related Article

Offensive as this portrayal may have been, it came as no surprise to sports-media scholars. Over the past three decades we have amassed a large body of empirical evidence demonstrating that sportswomen are significantly more likely to be portrayed in ways that emphasize their femininity and heterosexuality rather than their athletic prowess. Study after study has revealed that newspaper and TV coverage around the globe routinely and systematically focuses on the athletic exploits of male athletes while offering hypersexualized images of their female counterparts.

These findings are no trivial matter. Scholars have long argued that a major consequence of the media's tendency to sexualize women's athletic accomplishments is the reinforcement of their status as second-class citizens in one of the most powerful economic, social and political institutions on the planet. In doing so, media images that emphasize femininity/sexuality actually suppress interest in, not to mention respect for, women's sports.

Many of those charged with covering and promoting women's sports take an entirely different view. As the quote beginning this article makes clear, the "sex sells" strategy remains deeply embedded among sports journalists and marketers, who also believe that reaffirming traditional notions of femininity and heterosexuality is a critical sales strategy. This approach, or so the argument goes, reassures (especially male) fans, corporate sponsors and TV audiences that females can engage in highly competitive sports while retaining a nonthreatening femininity.

The widely held assumption that sexualizing female athletes is the most effective way to promote women's sports creates cognitive dissonance. To begin with, marketing campaigns for leagues like the WNBA also emphasize the wholesome nature of women's sports, highlighting the connection between fathers and daughters. The underlying message is that women's sports embrace traditional "family values" and that their appeal cuts across generational lines. Given this message, a "sex sells" strategy is counterproductive. How many fathers would accept the notion that support for their daughters' sports participation would be increased by having them pose nude in Playboy? And should we buy the argument that what generates fan interest is how pretty athletes are versus how well they perform when a championship is on the line?

I don't disagree that when SI publishes its swimsuit issue males are quite interested in buying that particular issue of the magazine. It does not automatically follow, however, that their interest in women's sports has increased. On the contrary, I would argue that what males are interested in consuming is not a women's athletic event but sportswomen's bodies as objects of sexual desire.

To investigate empirically whether sex truly sells women's sports, I conducted a series of focus groups based on gender and age (18-34; 35-55) with a colleague at the University of Minnesota. Study participants were shown photographs of female athletes ranging from on-court athletic competence to wholesome "girls next door" to soft pornography and asked to indicate which images increased their interest in reading about, watching on TV and attending a women's sporting event.

Our findings revealed that in the vast majority of cases, a "sex sells" approach offended the core fan base of women's sports-women and older men. These two groups rated the image that portrayed athletic prowess as the one most likely to influence their interest in women's sports. Said one younger female: "This image [of a WNBA player driving toward the basket] really sucked me in. I want to be there. I want to be part of that feeling." In contrast, younger and older females, as well as older males, were offended by the hypersexualized images. One older male said: "If she [Serena Williams in a sexually provocative pose] were my sister I'd come in, slap the photographer, grab her and leave." Even when younger males, a prime target audience, indicated that sexually provocative images were "hot," they also stated that such images did not fundamentally increase their interest in women's sports, particularly when it came to attending a sporting event. The key takeaway? Sex sells sex, not women's sports.

So what does sell women's sports? The answer lies with women's college basketball and the coverage it receives on ESPN. Each year during the NCAA's March Madness tournament, women's hoops garner record attendance and TV ratings. Coverage of the women's Final Four bears a remarkable resemblance to that of the men's-a focus on great traditions, conference rivalries (Duke vs. North Carolina), legendary coaches (Pat Summitt vs. Geno Auriemma)-and, most important, showcasing sportswomen as physically gifted, mentally tough, grace-under-pressure athletes.

Millions of fans around the globe just witnessed such media images and narratives during coverage of the Women's World Cup in Germany. Perhaps such coverage will start a trend whereby those who cover women's sports will simply turn on the camera and let us see the reality-not the sexualized caricature-of today's female athletes. If and when that happens, sportswomen will receive the respect and admiration they so richly deserve.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The newest kid on the women's sports block is finding that the old formula for attention-getting is as robust as ever. 'Sex sells,' says Atlanta Beat defender Nancy Augustyniak, who was astonished to learn she finished third in a Playboy.com poll of the sexiest female soccer players."

# data[].attributes.headline
Women are being shown on TV less than man 

# data[].attributes.subject
Women are being shown on TV less than man 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new report shows how far women must go in order to achieve real gender parity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sex Discrimination: Crash Course Government and Politics #30

# data[].attributes.headline
Fans took a man treat differently. Women are recognized than man. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fans took a man treat differently. Women are recognized than man. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Football Association Slammed Over 'Sexist' Tweet About England's Women's Team

# data[].attributes.headline
Speech from a mother who has a experience and encourages everyone. Discuss the issue. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Speech from a mother who has a experience and encourages everyone. Discuss the issue. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Gender Equality Debate: A Boost for Women in Sport

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you're familiar with us at Athlete Assessments, you might know we're big believers in gender equality and are passionate about equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal recognition, not only just for female athletes, but for women in general.

# data[].attributes.headline
Women wage is declining and transferring to poor jobs. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Women wage is declining and transferring to poor jobs. 

# data[].attributes.body
Slideshow

# data[].attributes.headline
Women telling the truth of how they were mistreated in their games.

# data[].attributes.subject
Women telling the truth of how they were mistreated in their games.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Female athletes and their fans alike have demanded respect and equal opportunities on the field for years. Across sports, these athletes share an experience their male counterparts rarely (if ever) face: rampant sexism. It's an issue the Norwegian Women's Soccer team - who also happen to be finalists in this year's Women's World Cup - took on in a sarcastic new video that skewers every sexist misconception about their team and female athletes in general.

"We're shit," Trine Ronning, a defender on the team, says. "We suck, plain and simple."

Source: Mic/NRK/YouTube

Ronning's teammates echo this sentiment. Forward Emilie Haavi notes she often touches the soccer ball with her hands and struggles with free kick situations, while teammate Cathrine Dekkerhus admits she can only complete a mere 25 kick-ups - and even then only with a balloon.

"Goal kicks are a real nightmare to me," says goalie Ingrid Hjelmseth, who has been ranked among the best in the world. "The goal is just way too big," she continues. "There ought to be two of us."

Then there's the trouble off the field: Dekkerhus says her good looks forced her to switch teams, she notes, because her teammates fell in love with her.

"I panicked," she tells the video's host. "So I had to switch teams. ... Lesbians everywhere. It's teeming with them."

The players also make helpful suggestions to FIFA for new rules that would help accommodate their lady-centric inferiority, including a smaller soccer ball and "free throws" instead of free kicks.

While this team chose to skewer the sexist attitudes they have faced as athletes (and which other female athletes certainly have and continue to face), sexism is evident on all levels of the industry. A recent University of Southern California study found, for example, that TV coverage of women's sports has remained stagnant over the past 25 years, and another study found that the number of women in sports journalism declined from 17% to 10.2% from 2013 to 2014.

Hopefully Norway's unique approach to this long-standing problem will encourage some to question their preconceived notions about female athletes' abilities. And if this parody didn't get the message across, perhaps tuning into the Women's World Cup finals and watching these talented ladies own the field in real time will do the trick.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Norway's World Cup Team Hilariously Blasts Every Sexist Stereotype About Female Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Female athletes and their fans alike have demanded respect and equal opportunities on the field for years. Across sports, these athletes share an experience their male counterparts rarely (if ever) face: rampant sexism.