Introduction
Biases and workplace discrimination based on race, gender, religion, pregnancy, and disability are prohibited under the law. Discrimination in the workplace has existed in the United States since the early 1900s and continues to be a problem (Kaltiso et al., 2021). Beginning in 1865, business owners were permitted to employ enslaved persons to run their businesses (Kaltiso et al., 2021). In the middle of the twentieth century, there were few laws against workplace discrimination and bias. Many EMS workers are nevertheless subjected to some of the same workplace abuses and prejudices today. Although all firms must follow federal anti-discrimination rules, state statutes addressing biases in hiring and employment are significantly broad. Employers should adopt a zero-tolerance policy approach to deal with workplace discrimination, which can take many forms. Employees and employers in the EMS must educate themselves about discrimination, including how to detect and report it and what resources are available in order to reduce the vice. EMS workers continue to experience injustice, discrimination and workplace biases based on race, gender, disability, religious affiliation and other related aspects.
Review of Statistics
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is tasked with protecting workers from all kinds of discrimination by suing employers on behalf of individual employees or unions. In 2022, EEOC received discrimination complaints mainly related to religious and disability-linked issues. Additionally, there were still cases of gender, race, and pregnancy where some workers were denied their rights based on their life circumstances. About 64% of EMS workers have been impacted greatly by racism and prejudices that happen in the workplace due to their gender, disability, and pregnancy. The trend happens due to stereotypes and prejudices, which may be conscious or unconscious to the perpetrators.
It is essential to comprehend the several types of biases EMS employees could encounter at work. Age discrimination, color and race discrimination, equal pay discrimination, national origin discrimination, religious discrimination, and sex discrimination are examples of common forms of discrimination (Rudman, 2022). Under federal laws like the Equal Pay Act of 1963 or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), workplace discrimination rules are only sporadically precise (Rudman, 2022). Employees need to be informed that prejudice still exists in their industry. Unfair hiring practices, advancements that are not achieved legitimately, unequal pay, and retaliatory acts are all examples of discrimination.
For a variety of factors, there are more discrimination lawsuits overall. More people may feel motivated to contact the EEOC if there is better knowledge of what constitutes unlawful behavior and more media coverage of what bias looks like. In 2019, a total of 400 claims of racial discrimination for EMS workers were made to the EEOC (Maake et al., 2019). While there was a sharp decrease in incidents from 2002 to 2005, there was an increase in reports of racial and ethnic prejudice from 2006 to 2010. Of these racial discrimination complaints, it is estimated that about 5% involved EMS workers. There have been more complaints of discrimination based on race and color than any other.
Organizations still have a long way to go in eradicating racial and ethnic bias in the workplace. It may be difficult to believe for workers who have never experienced it, but racism is still endemic in far too many EMS workplaces (Kaltiso et al., 2021). In addition to macroaggression, which takes many forms, including the duties employees are assigned, their pay or benefits, and the criteria used to assess and reward their performance, EMS workers suffer subtle, unconscious bias in employment and advancement. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employees can report alleged workplace discrimination to a federal regulating authority (Kaltiso et al., 2021). Despite the ongoing sex and race discrimination in the workplace, few employees who experience potential prejudice exercise their legal rights by filing official complaints.
One type of prejudice that frequently appears in the EMS workplaces is gender bias. The propensity to favor one gender over another is known as gender discrimination. When someone unintentionally associates particular attitudes and stereotypes with another person or group, it is a form of implicit or unconscious bias (Kim et al., 2020). These actions have an impact on how an employee perceives and interacts with others. Men, particularly white heterosexuals, frequently experience preferential treatment, referred to as gender bias, in comparison with those who are gay or black. The bias against women that is based on their sex and is most obviously seen in professional contexts has frequently been referred to as sexism.
In the EMS workplaces, pay gaps and unfairness are still a problem. It is estimated that over about 42 percent of working women report having experienced gender discrimination at work (Lall et al., 2021). Discrimination involves a wide range of personal experiences, from earning less than their male peers for performing the same job to being passed over for crucial tasks, according to a new study of survey data from the Pew Research Center (Kaltiso et al., 2021). All phases of employee recruitment, hiring, and retention are susceptible to gender bias. The gender pay disparity between men and women is between 3% to 51%, with an average of 17%. (Lall et al., 2020). Because more women are restricted to lower-level positions in the EMS sector and cannot advance due to biases, gender disparity must be considered when analyzing the pay gap.
Religious discrimination is treating someone differently in the workplace due to their religion, religious beliefs, and practices or because they have asked for accommodations for such activities. It entails treating people differently in the workplace due to their lack of religious practice or belief (EEOC Sues Global Medical Response, 2019). The law defends everyone who honestly holds religious, moral, or ethical beliefs, not just those who follow established organized religions such as the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or other faiths. A person might be considered to have experienced unlawful religious discrimination if denied employment, dismissed, harassed, or otherwise negatively affected by their employer’s action against their religion, religious views, and practices.
Cases of EEOC discrimination based on religion have grown dramatically in recent years. Religious-based claims grew reported include. Religion is defined as all parts of religious observance, practice, and belief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (EEOC Sues Global Medical Response, 2022). Religious, ethical, and moral beliefs that are novel, uncommon, not a part of an official or organized religion, or that are only adhered to by a small number of people are also included in the definition of religion (EEOC Sues Global Medical Response, 2022). These traditional organized religions include Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. According to studies and research, when employers talk openly about religion and do not pretend it does not exist, their employees are happier, and these businesses are more likely to draw top talent.
Discrimination against individuals with disabilities is a global issue. It might take place in a social or professional situation. Disability discrimination at work might prevent someone from being autonomous and able to support themselves. Applicants and employees are shielded from disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in every work area, including hiring, benefits, and termination (McKinley et al., 2019). Similar regulations exist in many states and local governments; some apply to smaller enterprises. When workers realized that they are considered inferior, their dedication to serving the customers can be derailed by stressful lamentations for mistreatment. Nobody should be treated unfairly, especially for circumstances beyond their control.
Despite establishing legal solutions to prohibit discrimination against pregnant workers, emergency medical service professionals are still experiencing biases and prejudice.
When a corporation treats employees differently or unfairly due to their pregnancy, childbirth, or other related difficulties, this is referred to as workplace pregnancy discrimination. The discrimination may include denying pregnant employees time off or a reasonable accommodation, terminating or dismissing them, or imposing forced time off or work limitations. An example in the EMS sector is an employee who was mistreated due to their condition of pregnancy (Vollers, 2019). Further, it involves any other unfavorable employment action made due to a pregnant employee or a related health problem.
Despite current legislative safeguards, prejudice against pregnant people is nevertheless pervasive. Between October 2010 and September 2015 (fiscal years 2011 through 2015), nearly 31,000 pregnancy discrimination charges were reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state-level fair employment practice agencies (Lall, 2021). In the EMS sector, sector cases of pregnancy discrimination-related events are not reported which indicates that the number of complaints remained essentially constant over time. A thorough examination of these allegations and current statistics on women’s labor force participation show that pregnant women continue to face employment discrimination across all professions, races, ethnicities, and states (McKinley et al., 2020). Women of all races and ethnicities report experiencing pregnancy discrimination, but black women are disproportionately affected. Pre-term labor, preeclampsia and hypertensive disorders are pregnancy-related issues that black women are also more likely to experience, making it more difficult for them to maintain their health insurance and income in the event of pregnancy discrimination.
Conclusion
Workplace discrimination, biases, and prejudice against EMS workers are still prevalent in most health facilities and organizations. EMS workers perform crucial acts that help save the lives of different community members. Workplace discrimination can be detrimental and expensive as it damages a company’s reputation if those involved fail to address it appropriately. Although eradicating prejudice might be challenging, there are several strategies that organizations can use to help lessen the chance of discrimination in the workplace. Workplace discrimination should never be taken lightly, no matter how minor or severe. The first approach is to resolve any issues relating to bias as early as possible by providing training and enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for it in the workplace. Although eliminating all forms of prejudice may be difficult, employers will be prepared with the knowledge and tools needed to address these issues with both employees and employers in the workplace.
References
EEOC Sues Global Medical Response and American Medical Response for Religious and Disability Discrimination (2022). EEOC. Web.
Kaltiso, S. A. O., Seitz, R. M., Zdradzinski, M. J., Moran, T. P., Heron, S., Robertson, J., & Lall, M. D. (2021). The impact of racism on emergency health care workers. Academic Emergency Medicine, 28(9), 974-981. Web.
Kim, G., Kim, J., Lee, S., Sim, J., Kim, Y., Yun, B., & Yoon, J. (2020). Multidimensional gender discrimination in the workplace and depressive symptoms. PLOS ONE, 15(7). Web.
Lall, M. D., Bilimoria, K. Y., Lu, D. W., Zhan, T., Barton, M. A., Hu, Y. Y., & Baren, J. M. (2021). Prevalence of discrimination, abuse, and harassment in emergency medicine residency training in the US. JAMA Network Open, 4(8), e2121706-e2121706. Web.
Maake, T. N., Millar, B. T., Christopher, L. D., & Naidoo, N. (2021). A critical ethnographic study of discriminatory social practice during clinical practice in emergency medical care. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 1-9. Web.
McKinley, S. K., Wang, L. J., Gartland, R. M., Westfal, M. L., Costantino, C. L., Schwartz, D. & Phitayakorn, R. (2019). “Yes, I’m the doctor”: One department’s approach to assessing and addressing gender-based discrimination in the modern medical training era. Academic Medicine, 94(11), 1691-1698. Web.
Rudman, J. S., Farcas, A., Salazar, G. A., Hoff, J. J., Crowe, R. P., Whitten-Chung, K. & Joiner, A. P. (2022). Diversity, equity, and inclusion in the United States emergency medical services workforce: A scoping review. Prehospital Emergency Care, 3(2) 1-13. Web.
Vollers, A., C. (2019). Ala. EMT sues employer for pregnancy discrimination. Hmpglobal. Web.