Is a curious time in America. We are presented with a century virus, affecting millions of lives, and profoundly affecting our world and national economy. Across the country, there is a diverse reaction both legislatively and in the executive branch of government. Some states employ strict lock-down, other states striving to reopen. And, more recently, the protests, riots, property destruction, National Guard deployments, and more in response to perceptions of police behavior, government, rights, and more.
Legislatively, it may be an interesting consideration. Since the first COVID-19 diagnosis, we have seen executive and legislative amendments to various states' Worker’s Compensation laws. Many of those are retroactive in nature, placing risk upon businesses and insurers today for an illness (COVID-19) and frankly, class (viruses writ large) that had largely been excluded historically from workers' compensation.
Some of these actions have been broadly focused. California's Governor executed an executive order to create a presumption of compensability in Worker’s Compensation for COVID-19 for virtually any employee who works outside the home. Executive action in Kentucky has also been broad. Other states have seen executive order expansions more focused on the "first responder" or the "front line worker" or the "essential" worker. In each such action there is the balancing of various rights and responsibilities. Over it all hangs the fact that this virus has the potential to produce intense effects on people, businesses, governments, and more.
Legislative actions, and the preponderance of other actions, seem to be focused upon first responders. That is a term that includes different populations in different jurisdictions. However, most include police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and correctional officers within that group.
Thus, in June 2020, we saw news reports of legislative efforts directed at limiting police activity or even defunding police departments. Juxtaposed against that backdrop, we also see legislation signed into law for the presumptive compensability of COVID-19 for those of the same officers (and other first responders). Some may struggle to reconcile the two discussions. There will be some curiosity as to the convergence of these two sentiments, one pro-police and the other not so much. But to the discussion of word choice.
On June 8, 2020, the Illinois governor signed a COVID-19 presumption law, HB2455. Like other actions across the country, this provides retroactive compensability for events that occurred prior to the law's effective date (retroactive). This particular bill provides that coverage beginning more than three months before (March). That retroactive law change will perhaps face court challenge at some point, as is possible with any retroactive enactment. How that is analyzed in various states will be intriguing to watch. But, in all, perhaps not such a distinctive bill in the age of COVID. Or is it?
The Illinois bill was interesting reading in another context. The language admittedly did not alert me immediately, but in reading the language repeatedly my curiosity was piqued.
In 1979, Florida amended its Workers' Compensation Act to remove gender-specific references. That was over 40 years ago. "Workman's Compensation" became "Workers' Compensation," a recognition of the, even then, the long-existing fact that America's workforce was not Uni-gender. So, while I was not surprised Illinois enacted a COVID presumption, I was surprised to notice it specifically focuses on “policeman,” and “firemen.” There are also repeated uses of the pronouns "him" and "he," as well as frequent use of the term "widow," but not "widower."
Of course, "widow" refers to "a woman who has lost her spouse by death . . ." A man who has similarly lost a spouse, and not remarried, is a "widower." Thus, a reference to what a "widow" can do, or that to which a "widow" is entitled, has a genderist tone suggesting that the decedent was male and the survivor is female. In our age, when a family loses the income of either spouse, there is a marked impact. In an age of genderist term challenges, I also wonder about the application of the term "widow" in various other contexts, but that is perhaps for another post.
"Fireman" might be used in any sentence. However, a more general reference to someone who works in the fire-fighting profession might simply be "firefighter." The Illinois bill recently signed by the Governor uses the term "fireman" 28 times, and uses the term firefighter 3 times. Similarly, the bill uses the term "policeman" 44 times, but does not use the more generic term "police officer." Regarding a death, the bill uses the term "widow" 11 times, but does not reference benefits for a "widower." In the bill the words "him" (13) and "his" (102) are used in describing the delivery of benefits many times. The pronoun "her" (27, of which 25 are in the phrase "his or her") and she (4, each of which are in the phrase "he or she") are used far fewer times.
In the age of political correctness, which The Atlantic reminded in 2018, there is perhaps room for discussion as to viewpoints, fatigue, and the "exhausted majority." More recently, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson was quoted on ABC News: "America needs to stop being offended about everything and 'grow up.'" Admittedly, word choice may not be among our greatest challenges today. As we view the larger world issues, perhaps genderist legislative references are simply not that large an issue?
But, on the other hand, in our modern world, they are so easy to fix. With any word processor, someone could proof a bill like HB2455. The "search and replace" function could almost effortlessly remove such gender references. Whether it is or is not a big deal, whether we should be offended or not, it seems like this language would be very easy to change. And, one might ask what reason there is not to? Seemingly, the ease of not using "man" supports simply not using "man." Or, perhaps there is some good reason to continue doing so? If I am missing the boat here, I would love to hear from you.
