Title Page Overview
Employment discrimination is a multidimensional phenomenon spread across the globe. Scholars agree that in today’s business environment, employee discrimination is a threatening challenge that continues to persist despite federal laws to control it. Employee discrimination law was developed to protect employees against discrimination based on religion, race, age, sex, and other social factors. Usually, intentional direct discrimination social groups of individuals as pertains to the human rights legislation is illegal. Nonetheless, in some incidences, intentional direct discrimination is acceptable. For instance, it is socially acceptable for religious-based schools to hire employees who profess a particular faith to avoid collisions with the students. The purpose of this research paper is to describe five kinds of discrimination that occur in various types of human resource practices such as promotion, hiring, termination, and job assignment. The paper also describes the laws on the issues discussed and the relevant procedures and policies to avoid litigation by employers.
Gender
Gender discrimination occurs in different forms. Nonetheless, the general implication is that an employee experiences unfavorable treatment because of their sexual identity. For example, the denial of a job opportunity to a qualified individual just because she is a woman is gender-based employee discrimination. Another example is, if a female worker keeps her hair short and is told to be presentable, such as a kind of bias associated with sex stereotypes, which is a form of discrimination.
The Law about Gender
Gender discrimination is illegal according to federal laws. In most states, these laws apply to companies that have 15 or more employees. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal to discriminate against an employee based on their gender, race, religion, or national origin (Green, 2017). Further, employers should not use the gender factor to exercise bias to pay less, not hire, fire, or in giving employee privileges. Under this policy, it is illegal to have different policies that govern both men and women. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (E.P.A.) also protects workers against receiving less pay due to their gender for the same amount of work as of their opposite gender, in the same workplace. As such, some employers associated with exhibiting gender-based discrimination have faced the lawsuit.
For instance, in the case of Nike, the company was sued by four women at a federal court in Oregon for extensive sexual harassment and practicing gender pay inequalities (Green, 2017). A report by former employees indicated that women were paid less for a substantially equal piece of work as their male colleagues, in April 2018 (Tiwari, Mathur & Awasthi, 2018). According to the complaint, women were largely overlooked in terms of job promotion and bonuses. Resultantly, the C.E.O. was prompted to refurbish the company’s compensation and hiring practices. Also, the allegations have led staff shakeup and the resignation or firing of some top executives at Nike (Green, 2017). According to a PRESS RELEASE on 8-12-13 by EEOC, the checkers were sued for pay discrimination (Thomas, 2020). According to this source, the market burgers, L.L.C., a fast-food restaurant, discriminated against women by paying less wages than male workers (Thomas, 2020). Further, the women were scheduled for less working hours as a basis to earn less compared to their male counterparts.
Policies and Procedures to Avoid Litigation
Employers should review the potential pay disparities to ensure that all employees with the same working capacities are given equal chances for a job opportunity. Further, regardless of gender, employees should be subjected to a fair number of working hours and equal pay. Also, women should be fairly represented in the top managerial positions across the company. Employers should also develop a work culture that appreciates gender equality and discourage any form of employment discrimination.
Discuss Whether Or Not the Law Is Preventing Lawsuits and Discrimination
The equal pay Act has played a significant role in preventing discrimination against women. Such is because employees continually experience time and financial losses in terms of jury awards. The settlement costs for the lawsuit claim substantial amounts of money from the employers. As a result, more employers have resolved to adhere to the employment Acts to avoid related lawsuits.
Race
Race describes a person’s ancestry or ethnic characteristics. People come from different races and colors, and while this social aspect is natural and no-one has control over their specific race, discrimination based on it is illegal. Statistics of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicated 27,696 charges of race discrimination in the fiscal year of 2004 (Maness & Conway-Klaassen, 2017). Further, EEOC recovered approximately $61.1 million as benefits plowed back from charging race-based employee discrimination parties (Maness & Conway-Klaassen, 2017). The laws against racial discrimination concern retaliation, job assignment, hiring, and promotion based on race.
The Law about Race
Both federal and state laws protect employees against racial discrimination. Every state has nondiscrimination laws. However, there are federal laws that apply to employers in all states. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers racial discrimination for both state and private employees. Further, the Due Process Clause and The Equal Protection Clause demand employers not to treat employees discriminatively due to their racial backgrounds (Maness & Conway-Klaassen, 2017). These laws protect all races of people. The rules emphasize on avoiding behaviors such as racial harassment, adverse actions, grooming policies, unfair working conditions, unintentional discrimination, and retaliation. For instance, according to the laws, it is illegal to use racially offensive terms or making inappropriate statements about a person’s race in the workplace (Maness & Conway-Klaassen, 2017). Despite the protection of the laws, racial discrimination persists and leading to lawsuits.
For instance, we feature the case of McClain versus Lufkin Industries, Inc., which is still actively litigated. The plaintiffs who were African American employees of Lufkin Industries Inc. complained of numerous subjection to unlawful disparate in job assignments and promotions (Green, 2017). The court ordered the company to adopt discriminatory policies in the job assignments, hiring, and promotions. Resultantly, the judgment also awarded $5.5 million in interest and back pay to over 1000 African American workers (Green, 2017). Another lawsuit was filed in 2003 by African American plaintiffs in O’Bannon versus Friedman’s concerning women discrimination in-store managerial jobs (Green, 2017). The plaintiffs complained of pay inequalities and promotion denials for women. Although Friedman was declared bankrupt and unable to pay the monetary relief if finally resolved to dissolution.
Policies and Procedures to Avoid Litigation
While lawsuits impose various costs on the employer when found guilty of racial discrimination, it is crucial to implement some policies to avoid litigation. For instance, when taking disciplinary actions against employees, it is essential to assess the crime they committed thoroughly and consult a legal counsel before making a final decision. All the allegations should be factual to ensure employees do not claim racial discrimination. Further, such disciplinary actions should be equal to all employees despite their racial background. Also, employers should treat the daily reports of racial harassment with seriousness to avoid more conflicts. As employees feel cared for, this burs them from taking legal actions in case of gross misconduct.
Discuss Whether Or Not the Law Is Preventing Lawsuits and Discrimination
Nonetheless, most of these federal laws tend to blow off complaints, and hence such racial discrimination persists. As such, most victims of racial discrimination end up resigning the jobs forcefully for fear of worse actions they may face. In this consideration, it is essential that when victims of racial segregation file a lawsuit, the court should take the matter seriously and settle it through disciplinary actions against the prosecutor.
Pregnancy
Pregnancy discrimination entails treating a female job applicant or employee unfavorably due to pregnancy, childbirth, or pregnancy-related illness. If a woman is unable to perform well in her duties due to a pregnancy condition, she should be treated the same as another employee who has a temporary disability. Such discrimination may also entail an employee burred from reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, restrictions on work or forced time offs.
The Law About Pregnancy
Some laws protect women employees against pregnancy discrimination. Such include the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (P.D.A.) (Green, 2017). The Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 also allows employees a minimum of three paid and protected leave for employees with critical medical conditions or pregnancy. Despite the implementation of P.D.A. in 1978, employee discrimination for pregnant women continues to exist. According to the U.S. Equal Opportunities Employment Commission (EEOC), 3500, pregnancy discrimination charges were received in 2016 (Green, 2017). Examples of pregnancy-based discrimination include the Nasty Gal clothing company which was sued for firing a male employee for paternity leave and three pregnant employees (Green, 2017). The four employees filed the case for being let go on unreasonable grounds, and the case is still pending. G.E.B. Medical Management, Inc. was also alleged to pay $6.2 million for damages caused to three pregnant employees who claimed harassment and discrimination (Green, 2017). The company’s actions revealed their violation of anti-discrimination laws, which fortified the claim.
Another latest case concerns U.P.S. versus Peggy Young, whereby Young was denied a reasonable accommodation for pregnant women (Thomas, 2020). The plaintiff also accused the prosecutor of forceful unpaid leave, which led to the loss of her medical coverage. While Young lost in the district court, she finally proved her case in the U.S. Supreme Court, which returned it to the district court for review. Further, in California, Rosaria Juarez sued AutoZone for demoting her based on pregnancy (Thomas, 2020). The company also fired Juarez for filing a case against its discriminative actions. Resultantly, the court ordered the company to award Juarez $185 million in punitive damages. AutoZone later settled the matter.
Policies and Procedures to Avoid Litigation
While pregnancy-related discrimination on employees can cost the prosecutors substantial amounts of money when the plaintiff files a lawsuit, it is vital that employers implement relevant policies to avoid litigation. Firstly, it is quite essential that employers understand the laws about pregnant employees. With proper knowledge and education, the employers stand a better chance to avoid discriminative practices that would land them in the court. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act bears essential information regarding how to treat pregnant employees. Further, employers should seek counsel from the attorney to ascertain whether their policies comply with the anti-discrimination acts. Creating and updating systems is vital to ensure all the employees have relevant knowledge of the applicable laws.
Discuss Whether Or Not the Law Is Preventing Lawsuits and Discrimination
Apparently, the P.D.A. has indicated enormous improvement in reducing the cases of discriminative acts. For instance, in the mentioned case of Juarez against AutoZone, the company later settled the matter, and no further incidents were reported.
National Origin
Discrimination based on national origin refers to unfavorable treatment of an employee because of their nationality or their appearance associated with a particular country or region. Such can also include discrimination based on the fact that an employee is married to a partner who comes from a particular area or country. Such can still occur if the victim and the offender belong to the same national origin.
The Law about National Origin
The laws against such discrimination require that employees receive equal opportunities for job positions, promotions, assignments, and pay, regardless of their nationality. This is according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law applies to employers with 15 or more employees, and discrimination is illegal irrespective of one’s culture, ancestry, or birthplace. Another rule is the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.), which covers immigration matters (Thomas, 2020). While discrimination can occur based on citizenship status or rejection of genuine documents, this law protects individuals against such discrimination.
Nonetheless, an employee can be exempted from job positions that require customer contact if their accents interfere with their communication fluency. In 2017, the jury judged in favor of a former employee who filed a lawsuit for national origin discrimination in a case of Middlebrooks versus Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., the plaintiff complained that the Israelis’ pharmaceutical company discriminated against him for his American origin. The plaintiff was awarded $1.16 million by the jury for damages.
Policies and Procedures to Avoid Litigation
Employers can avoid litigation by keeping detailed records of the contract terms and conversations made between them and the employees. These records can be used by courts and attorneys. Employers should also implement workplace policies that eliminate any form of discrimination. The I.N.A. is useful in ensuring that immigrants receive equal treatment in the workplace despite their national origin.
Religion
Religious discrimination involves maltreating an employee because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. Employers should accommodate the diverse religious beliefs of both applicants and employees. Denying an individual an opportunity for a job position, promotion, or job benefits is a common phenomenon, especially in countries that uphold religion with strict doctrines. For instance, some states in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, tend to favor Islamic employees and reject those from other religions (Thomas, 2020). Such discrimination can assume various forms, such as harassing individuals, by making fun of their religious attires and dress codes. Also, mocking the Christian employees for their strong belief in God is a form of religious discrimination. Denial of their exemption from Sunday duties, which is the Christian day of Sabbath, expresses religious discrimination. Such indicates the failure by the employer to adhere to religious accommodations.
The Law about Religion
Most federal laws prohibit religion-based discrimination against employees. Some of the laws that govern against religious discrimination include Title VII, which protects employees against discrimination due to their faith and beliefs. The law requires that employers accommodate employees despite their faith and religious morals as long as they do not affect their performance or create workplace conflicts. However, employers should be conversant with the consistent professions of various religious beliefs. Such is to avoid some insincere employees’ claims in the quest to prevent the company rules. An example of these cases includes one for J.B.S. Swift & Co. versus Greeley; Colorado filed on 30/8/2010 when the prosecutor failed to allow the Muslim workers’ time to pray, especially during Ramadan (Thomas, 2020). The defendant was also accused of creating a hostile environment that did not accommodate religious statutes. Another case is that of Jetstream (PXDO) filed in 2013, whereby the defendant denied the female Muslims the job opportunities (Thomas, 2020).
Policies and Procedures to Avoid Litigation
In avoiding litigation, employers should implement various policies and procedures. These include establishing formal objective criteria to use while evaluating candidates for the job position, applicable to all candidates. Further, employers can use the same questions for all the job applicants during an interview to avoid discriminatory treatment.
Summarily, employee discrimination is a global phenomenon that persists in various forms. Employee discrimination describes a scenario whereby a particular individual is perceived or treated unfavorably because of their social differences, mostly pertaining to gender, race, color, nationality, and religion. Such discrimination may be through hiring, promotion, job assignment, or pay inequality. Nonetheless, owing to the risks such discrimination imparts to the victim, the federal laws apply to protect against such discrimination. Albeit every state has laws that regulate various forms of discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers all kinds of employee discrimination. Based on this act, it is illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee due to their origin, race, linguistic language, religion, or gender. The paper discussed five types of basis under which employees can be discriminated, presenting some example cases whereby employers were sued for such discrimination. The paper also featured policies and procedures that employers could implement to avoid litigation, as well as the laws that prohibit against specific kinds of discrimination.
References
Green, K. L. (2017). VII, Title IX, or Both?. Seton Hall Circuit Review, 14(1), 2.
Maness, L., & Conway-Klaassen, J. (2017). Laws to protect diverse employees. American
Society for Clinical Laboratory Science, 30(1), 38-42.
Thomas, S. A. (2020). The Customer Caste: Lawful Discrimination by Public
Businesses. Available at SSRN.
Tiwari, M., Mathur, G., & Awasthi, S. (2018). Gender-Based Discrimination Faced by Females
at Workplace: A Perceptual Study of Working Females. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education.