A Case of Gender Discrimination? Benchmarking Gender Discrimination Policies in Public Works

Abstract

In November 1996, California voters passed the controversial California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) to abolish race- and gender-preference programs by amending the state constitution. Although the constitutionality of this initiative is being debated in court and the final outcome is still to be decided, the potential impact of such legislation is widespread within the public works agency administration. Historically, public works agencies have developed and defined their workplace protection policies by referencing laws or regulations that were designed to protect employees. However, in the face of initiatives such as Proposition 209, this type of referencing may facilitate gender and/or racial discrimination. This article examines the implications of “incorporation by reference” and alternative methods of effective policy development.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. (1993, March). Watch your language (DFEH-166, Rev. 3/93).

Sacramento: Author. California Secretary of State. (1996, November). Proposition 209. Sacramento: State of California.

Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences Inc. v. The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges et al. (1996). Sacramento Superior Court. 96CS0310.

Coalition for Economic Equity et al v. Pete Wilson, Governor of the State of California et al. (1996, November). U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. C96–4024 TEH.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. (May 1997). Template for developing a request for proposal, Section 1–9, Los Angeles, California.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration. (1996, February). 29 C.F.R Section 1604.2, Subtitle B, Chapter XIV. Sex as a bona fide occupational qualification. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.