Lessons Learned: The Myth of Workplace Equity By Sarah Banda Purvis, Ph.D. Some might argue that workplace inequities and harassment incidents are problems of the past and today's laws prevent or minimize their occurrence. However, many workers fail to realize that although discrimination legislation as well as related regulations and guidelines have been enacted to protect employees, employers and their attorneys are extremely skillful at turning such laws to their advantage. I know. A potentially career-derailing experience enlightened me. Several years into my managerial career within Corporate America, I was asked to work with a young male employee who had been given a developmental assignment in my department. Higher-level management apparently had taken an interest in this man and responded to his request for career exposure in a more qualitative function unlike the somewhat technical area in which he had worked for a few years. Through this association, the disturbing realities of corporate salary inequities hit home. The male trainee held a Bachelor of Science degree and was considerably younger. His previous position was non-managerial in nature, and he had no relevant academic or job experience. I, on the other hand, held a managerial position, possessed a bachelor's and master's degree in fields related to my job responsibilities, and was in the process of completing my doctoral degree, again in an area applicable to my function. Also, my credentials featured numerous years of relevant work experience. Despite such distinctions, he entered the developmental assignment at a salary level substantially higher than my own. The arrangement had been defined as supposedly short-term, but the situation actually continued far beyond its designated duration. Rumors began to circulate that the young man's former department was being eliminated and his previous colleagues would be terminated or reassigned to other parts of the corporation. It initially appeared that higher-level management had created a temporary safe haven for this individual. Eventually, management's more calculated intentions became apparent. Almost a year after the developmental assignment began, the man's former department was indeed eliminated in a corporate downsizing and reorganization. During this same restructuring, the male trainee was permanently assigned to my department while I was transferred into another position in a different function. Management described the transfer as a great growth opportunity in recognition of my stellar job performance. The ability to always get the job done served as my career trademark. As a result, by that stage in my professional life, in addition to my defined job responsibilities, I had been handling special projects and assignments for the corporation's president and chief executive officer (CEO) as well as working with the young man in his developmental role. The CEO routinely commended my job performance. My achievements and abilities were documented, and I was told that this job change was intended to permit me to "grow with the company." However, the so-called career-building position was undefined both in scope and direction. According to management, definition would come in time. Yet, excuses were continually made. The corporation never did define my role and the growth opportunity never materialized. When I questioned this, management's treatment of me deteriorated. My workload became predominately administrative and clerical in nature. So much so that when I resigned after enduring the situation for two years, I was asked to meet with two department secretaries to turn over the responsibilities I was leaving behind. Female colleagues who observed this entire sequence of events angrily and vehemently declared I had been discriminated against and urged me to seek legal restitution. Despite management's attempt to veil its maneuverings by slightly altering the job title it had assigned the young man during the restructuring, he on more than one occasion told me he was carrying out the same responsibilities I had handled. He also continued to seek out my advice and guidance during his initial months in the job. In essence, my former male trainee was earning considerably more money for doing the same work I once did. Did my then employer break any laws? Absolutely not. Although management became rather transparent in its intent, it had covered its tracks from a legal standpoint according to a labor law attorney I consulted. Management's actions included an important preliminary step. The corporation transferred me out of my job into another newly created position before assigning my previous responsibilities to the young male trainee. He and I would not be doing the same work at the same time. What is ironic is that a few years earlier I had asked to interview for a position in another area of the corporation. The person filling the job told me there was no doubt in her mind I could handle the responsibilities. However, she said she had been told by her higher-ranking boss that he wanted an MBA in the position. Since my master's degree was more qualitative in nature, I was not given an opportunity to interview or be considered. Just a couple of years later, though, the corporation moved me out of a qualitative job so a man with a more technical background without any relevant work or academic credentials could take over my responsibilities at a higher salary. As for the corporation underutilizing my skills and credentials in the newly created, undefined position, the lawyer I consulted further noted that in an employment at-will state, my employer could ask me to "sweep the floors" and I would have no legal recourse. Employment at-will is a rule created in the days when the workplace was less complicated in nature and did not typically involve long-term associations between workers and employers. In layman's terms, the rather antiquated doctrine essentially does not recognize employment with an organization as a contractual relationship and in the modern workplace appears to serve as a powerful legal tool for employers in their dealings with employees. Time has a way of softening the memories of such a negative experience. Today, I am cognizant of employers' proficiencies at working around the regulations intended to protect the interests of employees, and when I read about the corporate world's commitment to equal employment opportunities, I simply smile at the hypocrisy. Also see: • Why women don't help other women • Dodging unintentional discrimination in the workplace • Misconceptions about women in the global arena keep their numbers low ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dr. Sarah Banda Purvis' credentials include two decades of managerial experience with two different Fortune 500 companies headquartered in the United States. When Dr. Purvis reflects upon her 20-year work experience in Corporate America, she describes it as an enlightening journey. Her corporate sojourn permitted her to examine workplace settings on a firsthand basis as well as to observe, listen to and note the experiences of other working women. Dr. Purvis can be contacted through e-mail at mail2sbp@aol.com. She is a frequent guest on online forums. Her Web site, Insider Views on Workplace Issues, is at http://www.insiderviews.com