2. 外语
  3. Sue Kirchofer got a preview of what was to come when she tried to change the beneficiary on her life insurance policy at work fr

Sue Kirchofer got a preview of what was to come when she tried to change the beneficiary on her life insurance policy at work fr

admin2012-12-01  44
问题     Sue Kirchofer got a preview of what was to come when she tried to change the beneficiary on her life insurance policy at work from her mother to her partner in early 1994. She was told that wasn’t an option. Kirchofer had worked at the industrial packaging and supply company in Seattle for nearly three years by then but was just beginning to come out about her sexuality. "They basically told me to remain invisible," she says.
    Kirchofer duly kept mute about her sexual orientation at work. But a few months later, word got out that Kirchofer, a skilled soccer player, would be playing in the Gay Games in New York, an international competition that attracted more than 11,000 athletes from around the world. When she returned to work the week after the games, she was told she no longer had a job.
    Kirchofer had always received good marks on her job performance reviews, and had even been promoted. "I offered to take another job within the company at a lower salary, since (the owner) said the money he was paying me was causing the company to take a loss," she recalls, though she says she knew what he said wasn’t true. The owner’s response, according to Kirchofer, "We don’t want you in any capacity at this company. "
    Kirchofer was terminated, effective immediately—without severance or warning. "I was blindsided," she says, "Even as I relay it now, it is still a devastating thing to recount. To fire someone based only on sexual orientation, not job performance, is a horrific thing to have happened. "
    However, last week, a Senate panel passed a bill whose first version appeared more than 25 years ago and which has since been reincarnated in various forms, including legislation that failed by one vote in the Senate in 1996. This time, there are 43 cosponsors in the Senate for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which specifically prohibits employment discrimination of any kind on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill also has 190 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, 21 of them Republicans. And it has received endorsements from an unprecedented number of major U. S. corporations ranging from Microsoft to Harley-Davidson.
    Records show Kirchofer’s case was reviewed by the city’s human-rights department in 1995, which found in her favor. Bronstein could not reveal more details but Kirchofer says her company was asked to pay her $ 1,000, which she donated to charity. Her ex-employer was also required to attend a diversity workshop. Kirchofer says she felt vindicated by the city’s support.
    Without a federal law, say Kirchofer and other advocates, many employers know that they can get away with discrimination without fear of much penalty. More than half of all Fortune 500 companies have adopted a policy against sexual-orientation harassment or discrimination, says Jon Davidson, senior counsel at Lamba Legal, a national organization that promotes civil rights for homosexuals. "It shows that they support the concept, which is great," he adds. " But in terms of whether the policies are efficient, well, there’s not much you can do about it if the internal procedures are inadequate. "
    Last year, Lamba Legal reported nearly 700 phone calls in with complaints related to sexual-orientation discrimination at work—second only to calls related to family matters. And Davidson says that number is just a fraction of the actual cases out there, as many people don’t report incidences of harassment or discrimination against them, feeling that filing a complaint would be futile.
    "One of the needs for a national law is that in the states where discrimination is most prevalent, you are least likely to get an antidiscrimination law passed," adds Davidson, "Right now, we have a patchwork of protections, and it’s not right that people could be subjected to discrimination in some parts of the country without any redress. We need a national law that protects all workers—no employee should be denied equal treatment at work because of whom they love. "
    Most Americans seem to agree. In a Newsweek poll last week, 85 percent of Americans said there should be equal rights for gays and lesbians in terms of job opportunities—up from 59 percent in a Newsweek poll conducted in 1982. And a nationwide Harris Interactive poll taken in June 2001 found that 61 percent of Americans favored a federal law prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. The 2001 survey also found that 42 percent of adults surveyed believe that such a law currently exists.
Which of the following statements is INCORRECT concerning the needs for a national antidiscrimination law?
选项 A、Without a national law, many employers know that they can get away with discrimination without any penalty.
B、Some states where an antidiscrimination law is most needed are unable to have it passed.
C、It should be redressed if there are people subjected to discrimination somewhere.
D、Most American people believe a federal law prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation is a moral necessity.
答案D
解析 选项A、B、C都可以在第七、第八段找到相应信息，选项D虽然部分信息在最后一段得到体现，但并没有提到道德方面的必要性，所以答案为D。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/UQaO777K
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)