Okinoshima, a 200-acre island off the Japanese mainland, was announced as one of the newest additions to the UNESCO World Heritage sites list on Sunday. But globe-trotters wanting to visit Okinoshima may need to reconsider: the island bans women.

The reason behind the island’s ban is unknown, but it is commonly thought to stem from an ancient belief that menstruation makes women impure.

Men who wish to go to the sacred island also have to follow strict guidelines, including ridding themselves of their impurities by bathing naked in the ocean before coming ashore. Men are allowed only one visit per year. They must also never speak of the island, nor remove so much as a flower or blade of grass from the environment, according to Japanese newspaper The Asahi Shimbun.

The female-free land mass is manned year round by a Shinto priest who prays to the island’s gods and watches over the 17th century shrines.

The mystical island is also home to a vast collection of culturally significant and virtually intact archeological artifacts that “provide evidence of intense exchanges between the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula and the Asian continent,” according to UNESCO.

The island’s treasures and new World Heritage status would have likely attracted a number of tourists, were it not for its policy on travelers. But local officials have stated they will not loosen any rules in light of UNESCO’s decision.

UNESCO Faces Criticism

While the Japanese government welcomed the announcement of its 17th heritage site, many took to social media to express their discontent that a site banning women was given a UN commendation.

Okinoshima island's forbidden to women & Unesco thinks it's ok since there's another place forbidden to women. whatever @UNESCO #WonderWoman

— V-Lex (@VitalMilla) July 10, 2017

The UNESCO Committee debated whether Okinoshima’s inclusion as a World Heritage site would be discriminatory, but found a precedent in Mount Athos, in Greece, which also prohibits entry to women. Okinoshima’s approach to gender segregation did not constitute a sufficient reason to prevent the island from becoming a World Heritage site, according to UNESCO spokesperson Roni Amelan.

An island official refuted comments saying the practice was discriminatory, and told AFP that the ban “is meant to protect women, the birth-giving gender” because travel by sea can be dangerous.

Still, some find that the decision sends the wrong message and is directly at odds with UNESCO’s Priority Gender Equality Action Plan, which has a stated goal to “ensure that a gender equality perspective is reflected in all its policies, programs, and processes.”

Rajan Zed, president of the U.S.-based Universal Society of Hinduism, called for UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova’s resignation for failing to uphold the organization’s ideals.

“Where women are revered, there the gods are pleased; where they are not, no rite will yield any fruit,” Zed said, quoting Hindu scriptures.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Japanese Island That Bans Women is Now a UNESCO World Heritage Site appeared first on Law Street.

In what seems like an action that should have been taken decades ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched an investigation this month into the hiring practices of Hollywood; specifically, how many female filmmakers are being excluded from the job pool based on gender bias.

The EEOC reportedly sent a letter out to about 50 women filmmakers, requesting interviews to see what actions could be taken against the worst offenders of gender discrimination in the film industry.

They have a lot of work to do.

The numbers have always been discouraging for women who want to pursue careers behind the camera. In an annual study released by San Diego State University’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, in 2014 women represented just 17 percent of “behind-the-scenes” roles in the 250 top-grossing films. These roles were defined in the study as including directors, writers, executive producers, producers, editors, and cinematographers. Even more disheartening is the proportion of female directors for those films: just seven percent.

Television hasn’t fared much better. The Directors Guild of America (DGA) released its annual report on the demographics of television directors in August. It found what the DGA is calling “modest improvement”: out of nearly 4,000 episodes produced in the time span studied, 16 percent of those episodes were directed by women (this was a “modest improvement” from last year’s 14 percent). Only three percent of that 16 were minority women.

“The uptick in the number of episodes directed by women–modest but hopeful–is just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done…before we can begin to realize equal opportunities in television for our members,” said DGA President Paris Barclay. “Without employers making a concerted effort to bringing a more diverse mix of new entrants to the hiring pool, we won’t see meaningful and lasting change.”

Just how can we tell if employers for films and television are open to diversity? Hopefully, the EEOC will find out in its interviews. Obviously, we don’t want companies hiring women just to fill a void. Directors, writers, producers, etc. should be hired based on merit and creativity. However, that huge gap indicates a problem that can’t be explained away by “maybe men are just better at [insert job description here].”

Those percentages are just the tip of the iceberg in indicating how male-centric Hollywood–and media in general–actually is. It doesn’t just apply to women behind the camera. Going back to those studies conducted by SDSU, just under half of major television characters (42 percent) are women, with the majority of those characters belonging to ABC–thank you, Shonda Rhimes. That is a really positive number, but diving a little deeper into it, we start to see the inequality in that misleading 42 percent. According to the study, most of those female characters belonged to reality television programs, were younger than their male counterparts (very few of them were over 60), and 77 percent of them were Caucasian. So, you see, it isn’t just about the numbers. Representation can also be discriminatory.

We see these issues the most in film. With only 12 percent female protagonists in the top 100 films of 2014, a bias toward male characters is obvious.

Now, how many of those films with female protagonists can actually pass the well-known Bechdel Test? All it calls for are two female characters (they don’t even have to be named) talking to each other about something other than a man. It is surprising how many films fail such a simple criteria. While the Bechdel Test may not be a champion for feminist ideals or for great filmmaking, it is a good jumping-off point to see the commonality of gender stereotypes.

So what can the EEOC do with all this information, and the insights it will gather from its upcoming interviews? Class action lawsuits are the most likely,  and unfortunately, it might not even come to that. What truly can affect change will be the actions of the women already in the industry. They can move forward with their own careers while reaching out to more women like them–hopefuls wanting to direct, write, produce, or act. Writers can create more dimensional parts for women. Producers can push for shows with more accurate female representation. Actresses can refuse parts that stereotype them. The more everyone becomes aware of the gap, the more we can all work together to close it.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gender Discrimination in Film is Still the Norm appeared first on Law Street.

Silicon Valley and its main industries–tech companies and venture capital firms–has been long under fire for its lack of gender diversity. From depressing statistics about the diversity of various tech companies, to female developer Adria Richards live tweeting sexist comments at a tech conference in 2013, Silicon Valley has done plenty to live up to that reputation. However, if you’re looking for a pretty damning example of sexism in the industry, look no further than the recent Ellen Pao-Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers case, decided late last week. The decision concluded that the prominent VC firm didn’t discriminate against former employee Pao.

Pao, who is now the interim CEO of social media and news site “Reddit,” started at the prestigious venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers in 2005. A graduate of Princeton, Harvard Law, and Harvard Business School, she was brought on as the chief of staff for John Doerr, one of the senior partners at the firm. Doerr–who was involved in the success of Netscape, Amazon, and Google–is well known as one of Kleiner’s most prominent voices. Pao was then made a junior investing partner, but was never made a senior partner, and was fired in 2012.

Her suit alleged that she was passed over for the senior partner promotion based on sex discrimination, that she was retaliated against for complaining about sex discrimination, and that she was fired because of the complaints she levied. Kleiner claimed that they treated her fairly, and passed her over because she was not going to be a good fit for the job. Pao argues that men with similar profiles and histories were promoted when she wasn’t. Pao’s suit asked for $16 million total, a combination of both punitive and compensatory damages.

The suit was decided against Pao–in other words, it was concluded that Kleiner was not guilty of sex discrimination. Based on the information that the jury had, I have no reason to believe they decided the case as anything other than fairly and to the best of their ability. But there’s an important distinction here–Kleiner can both be not discriminatory and still be a really crappy place to work.

That’s pretty much exactly what happened–Pao brought up a lot of pretty bad evidence about Kleiner’s employees and culture. While Kleiner did end up successful in the suit, they were still dragged through through the mud. Examples cited by Pao include Doerr, who had seemingly always been one of her biggest supporters and mentors, saying to an investor that she had “a female chip on her shoulder.” She also complained that partner Ajit Nazre retaliated against her after their consensual relationship ended. When she complained to Ray Lane, another high-ranking partner, he told her to marry Nazre to solve her problems. She claims another partner gave her a book of sexually explicit drawings, and that yet another didn’t invite women to parties because they “kill the buzz.” It wasn’t all just about Pao, either, as there was discussion of an incident in which Nazre showed up at a female junior partner’s hotel room in just a bathrobe, propositioning her.

So, while Kleiner may not have been guilty of discriminating against Pao specifically because of her gender, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t act appropriately at every turn. This isn’t any sort of surprising revelation–gender discrimination and sexism have long been alleged in Silicon Valley–but this case certainly didn’t help to dispel that concept. While Pao didn’t get her money, she certainly made her point.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ellen Pao Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Kleiner appeared first on Law Street.

The workers’ compensation system around the nation has been complicated for decades. Particularly in California, a measure from the early 2000s is now coming to light as more and more women are trying to get workers’ compensation. There’s a battle raging over whether or not there’s an inherent gender bias in the handling of workers’ compensation claims in California; the concern is that women who try to get workers’ compensation are “penalized” for gender-related conditions like pregnancies and menopause. Read on to learn about the gender bias in worker compensations claims in California, what’s being done, and a look at the discussions happening in other states.

What is workers’ compensation?

Workers’ compensation is a form of insurance provided in the workplace that can consist of wage replacements and medical benefits for employees who were injured while working. Usually by accepting these funds, employees acknowledge that they will not sue their employers for negligence. Workers who are permanently disabled while on the job receive compensation from insurers based on a calculation of the level of disability and what portion of the injury is linked to their jobs. Insurers may also weigh the worker’s previous health conditions or prior injuries. In California specifically, the process is overseen by the Division of Workers’ Compensation which:

Monitors the administration of workers’ compensation claims, and provides administrative and judicial services to assist in resolving disputes that arise in connection with claims for workers’ compensation benefits.

DWC’s mission is to minimize the adverse impact of work-related injuries on California employees and employers.

State of Workers’ Compensation

If you were to look at the statistics, it looks like fewer and fewer people nationwide are getting hurt at work, though that isn’t exactly the case.

A report came out recently about how the system is reporting very low numbers. The real reason? Changing the circumstances for what qualifies as a workplace injury, and the simple dissolution of programs that pay for such accidents. According to the Washington Post, the number of people injured at work is probably twice what is reported because people fear losing their jobs. Or people, like those in the construction industry, are misclassified as independent contractors.

The Washington Post recently discussed the national state of workers’ compensation problems, saying:

Since 2003, the investigation found, 33 states have weakened their workers’ compensation regulations, scaling back the procedures that will be covered and the duration for which benefits are offered. In addition, while businesses often push for reforms on the grounds that workers’ compensation costs are out of control, data shows that premiums are lower than they’ve been at any point since the early 1990s.

California’s Belabored Workers’ Compensation Program

Workers’ compensation programs have received complaints that they are inherently flawed throughout the United States. Lately the debate has been particularly focused in California. Complaints come from the fact that outside medical reviewers look at the cases and after brief exams or only by reading the medical records can deny recommended treatments or rule that injuries aren’t work-related.

Reform Under Governor Schwarenegger 

Some problems with the California system can be traced back to a bill that reformed the program, which was signed in 2004 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It changed what types of injuries qualified under the program, how long certain employees would receive coverage after being injured, and required the injured employees to choose from a specific pool of independent doctors. At the time, Schwarzenegger said:

This bill completes a process that brought together Republicans and Democrats, business and labor, and all the affected parties to produce billions of dollars in savings, protect workers, and root out fraud and waste in the system. No longer will workers’ compensation be the poison of our economy. Our message to the rest of the country and the world is that California is open for business. We are making our state once again a powerful, job-creating machine.

At that time, California employers were paying the highest workers’ comp rates in the nation: $6.33 for every $100 in payroll, compared to a national average of $2.46.

Although the bill was supposed to save Californians money, there were some problems with it. The new bill made it more difficult for workers to get in to see doctors and left them waiting for months without any answers to their problems.

Reform Under Governor Brown 

In 2012, Governor Jerry Brown put some of the power back in the hands of the state, deciding that disputes should be handled by independent medical reviewers whose decisions cannot be overturned. The law was a bit quirky, as this didn’t just apply to the new cases, but also retroactively to past requests, and it impacted everything from already-scheduled doctor’s visits to prescription refills. In some cases, treatments were stopped in the middle with little more than an official notice.

This new system also has problems, however, as in recent years reviewers have denied treatment in up to 91 percent of the cases. People who were receiving treatment for years suddenly found themselves left out in the cold, and many had to return to work to continue to pay for the medication they needed.

Christine Baker, who oversees workers’ compensation in California, has stated that the reform is “speeding up the decision making process” and taking the aid away from people who are using it for prescription abuse.

Many of the judges, including John C. Gutierrez, a workers’ comp jurist since the 1980s, are some of the biggest adversaries of the law. According to Gutierrez, “the only interest that’s being protected here is industry and I feel that their financial influence has had an impact on how this legislation came out.” He went on to say that he felt like workers “are losing their voice.”

This is a problem in the state regardless of gender, but when it comes to comparing women and men, there is an even bigger problem looming.

Gender Bias in Workers’ Comp Rulings

California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez introduced a bill (AB305) on March 4, 2015 that aims to eliminate the gender bias in workers’ compensation rulings.

This comes after a Bay Area woman who suffers from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, which damages the nerves in the hands and often limits movement, was denied workers’ compensation for a strange reason: she was postmenopausal, which meant that she was predisposed to nerve damage. 

The woman enacted the help of attorney Sue Borg who says that she sees many cases where a woman who is injured on the job and files a claim for compensation is “penalized” for things like pregnancies and menopause. “It seems like it should be obvious that we shouldn’t see this, but it happens in insidious ways all the time,” Borg said.

Gonzalez aims to ensure that being female does not constitute a preexisting condition, and hopes to stop the reduction of compensation for female workers based on pregnancies, breast cancer, menopause, osteoporosis, and sexual harassment. All of this discrimination is happening, even though there are laws against gender discrimination in the workplace.

Breast Cancer

One of the biggest problems facing women seeking workers’ compensation is breast cancer. There have been numerous reports of how breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers. According to the Corporate Counsel:

Gutierrez reports that the bill’s supporters claim gender bias in workers’ compensation is a big issue, and one that is “especially evident in the way breast cancer is treated among firefighters and police officers.” For instance, female police officers who have to undergo double mastectomies for breast cancer linked to hazardous materials on the job are considered 0 to 5 percent disabled, Gutierrez reports, whereas a male officer with prostate cancer is considered 16 percent disabled and would be paid for the injury.

One such case involves a San Francisco firefighter who was denied permanent disability after having to undergo a double mastectomy, as well as an Orange County hotel housekeeper who was injured on the job but only received two percent payment on her claim–despite doctors putting her disability level at 100 percent–due to prior conditions “related to childbirth, obesity, age and naturally occurring events.”

Pregnancy

Pregnancy has always been a fairly controversial issue when it comes to the workplace, but many women are now being denied workers’ compensation due to it, or facing claims that it is the “cause” of the problem. Things like back pain, muscle strain, and injuries caused by fatigue have all been attributed to pregnancy and not the workplace. “I’ve had a child, and if now being a mother is a pre-existing condition in California, I find that unacceptable,” said Christine Pelosi, chair of the California Democratic Party’s women’s caucus.

State Fires Back

The claims were immediately disparaged by the Workers’ Compensation Action Network, which said that payment decisions were never a result of discrimination. According to the Sacramento Business Journal: “A spokesman from Industrial Relations could not immediately produce data on gender-related bias or discrimination, but the agency will look into the matter and respond with its findings.”

Conclusion

The nation, and particularly California, has a lot of work to do in the coming months to try to look at reports and see if there is a problem. If there is, it could mean an inundation of old cases that may be able to be retried, meaning companies could owe a lot of money to women all over the state.

Surely California is only the beginning and more and more states, as well as the federal government, will have to look at their workers’ compensation laws and see if there are problems lurking in them. In the end, the people who don’t get covered by workers’ compensation won’t always work through their pain; many will end up on government subsidies, which means that the tax payers will have to cover the costs.

Resources

Primary

Department of Industrial Relations: Division of Worker’s Compensation California

Department of Industrial Relations: A Guidebook for Injured Workers

Additional

Corporate Counsel: Charges of Gender Bias in Workers’ Compensation

NPR: Injured Workers Suffer as ‘Reforms’ Limit Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Heartland Institute: Schwarzenegger Signs Workers Comp Reform

The New York Times: A Racy Silicon Valley Lawsuit and More Subtle Questions About Sex Discrimination

SF Gate: Gender Bias Rampant in Workers’ Comp Cases, Women’s Groups Charge

ProPublica: The Demolition of Workers’ Comp

NPR: As Workers’ Comp Varies From State to State, Workers Pay the Price

Property Casualty 360: California Workers’ Comp Bill Passes Legislature; Insurer Groups Cautious

BradBlog: Schwarzenegger’s Workers’ Comp ‘Reform’ Killed My Client

“

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Workers’ Compensation: A Flawed System? appeared first on Law Street.