Laws prohibit bias based on marital status

Virginia Ray just wanted her job back at Fulton Junior High.

She'd spent 16 years teaching at the western Illinois school,only to be transferred in 1983 because her husband, Ben, becameprincipal.

Mrs. Ray didn't think it was fair. It's more than unfair, theIllinois Human Rights Commission ruled late last month. It's illegalunder state law.

"The Illinois Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on thebasis of marital status," said Kent Sezer, general counsel of thecommission. "That includes any burden placed on someone because theydecide to get married or divorced or whatever."

Although the law has been on the books for more than a decade,countless companies, law firms and other employers continue to fire,transfer or refuse to hire one spouse based on the employment statusof the other.

"Many employers just don't know this is against the law," saidLisa Aisner, a staff attorney for the Illinois Department of HumanRights.

Only about 2 percent of the charges filed each year with thedepartment claim marital status discrimination, usually 80 or fewerannually, a spokesman said.

If the commission rules against the employer, the worker can beawarded back pay and reinstated in the job. Mrs. Ray was awardedmore than $10,000 in attorney's fees, and the school district wasordered to transfer her to the junior high and pay her any money,benefits and seniority she would have accrued back to 1983 when herhusband was named principal there.

As more women enter the work force and as couples increasinglymarry after meeting on the job, the problem is likely to grow,particularly if companies remain ignorant of the law.

Sezer likened employer disregard of the marital status law tothe treatment of laws prohibiting landlords from discriminatingagainst families with children.

That law has been in effect since 1914, he said, "but until wewent after the Sun-Times and the Tribune, you could take a look atthe newspaper and still see ads saying `no children allowed.' Youcan still find landlords who do that."

Federal laws prohibit discriminating against people because theyhave children, but there is no U.S. law prohibiting discriminationagainst someone based on his or her marital state.

In Chicago, a city ordinance does prohibit marital statusdiscrimination. The city Commission on Human Relations hasinvestigated seven cases in the last two years. The charges havecome from both married and single workers who claim their maritalstatus was behind their adverse treatment at work. The ordinanceallows the commission to reinstate the worker at her job, award backpay and levy punitive damages against the employer.

The cases at the city include a complaint from a woman whoclaimed she was denied a raise because she is a single mother. Inanother, a woman claimed she was fired because her supervisor did notlike single people. Another woman filed charges that she was nothired because she is married and the company only wanted singlewomen.

The majority of these discrimination complaints come from women,attorneys said, although the city commission is investigating anallegation from a man. He charges he was fired after his wife, whoworked for the same firm, filed a sexual harassment claim against thecompany.

That women are primarily affected is "the remnants of sexdiscrimination," said Stephen Katz, attorney for Mrs. Ray.

"We didn't look at it as discrimination," said Kent Hammer,superintendent of the River Bend Community Unit School District No.2, the defendant in the case. "Usually, spouses attempt not to be inthe same school. If two teachers get married and one (is promotedto) principal, the spouse usually asks for a transfer."

Those, like Mrs. Ray, who don't are transferred involuntarilyunder a district policy adopted in 1981.

Hammer said the district, located about 160 miles west ofChicago, has not yet decided whether to appeal the commission's July22 ruling. He said the policy was adopted because a spouse wouldfind it "very difficult to be impartial" toward another spouse.

The commission, however, ruled that is a faulty, stereotypicalassumption.

Under the state law, it is similarly illegal to assume that aspouse cannot work in the payroll department for fear she will slip alittle something extra into hubby's paycheck. Likewise, a firmcannot fire a wife after the husband quits to take a job with acompetitor because it fears she will blab company secrets. Nor can afirm refuse to hire single people on the assumption that singles makeworse employees because they are out carousing all night.

Employers may, however, legally fire an employee who actuallycommits such an act - a single person who performs poorly or apayroll clerk who cheats, for example. Then the employee is firedfor cause, not for marital status, Aisner said.

"There is no reason to believe a spouse will be unprofessional,"Aisner said. "If this person decided not to get married to theprincipal, then (the transfer) would be OK. But because she decidedto get married to the principal, she is subject to discrimination."