BHR 3565 Employment Law 1 Course Learning Outcomes Fo 802508

Bhr 3565 Employment Law 1course Learning Outcomes For Unit Iii Upo

BHR 3565, Employment Law 1 Course Learning Outcomes for Unit III. Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to discuss hot issues in discrimination in hiring, Affirmative Action, and Civil Rights. Specifically, students should distinguish between disparate treatment discrimination and disparate impact discrimination, describe the process for filing a claim under the Civil Rights Act, and contrast Affirmative Action and reverse discrimination. The unit covers the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, protected classes, types of discrimination, the process of filing EEOC complaints, and the concept of affirmative action, including issues of reverse discrimination and the duration of affirmative action plans. Additional topics include race discrimination, racial harassment, and related legal and ethical considerations.

Paper For Above instruction

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 represents a landmark piece of legislation aimed at eliminating discrimination and promoting equal treatment across various sectors, including employment. Title VII of this act specifically prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin, with enforceable measures and clear procedures for claims and resolutions. Understanding the distinctions between different forms of discrimination, such as disparate treatment and disparate impact, is essential for grasping the scope and application of employment law.

Disparate treatment discrimination occurs when an individual belonging to a protected class is deliberately treated less favorably than others. For example, refusing to hire a female applicant solely because of her gender exemplifies this form of discrimination. It involves intentional acts motivated by bias or prejudice, and legal remedies often include proving discriminatory intent (Moran, 2014). Conversely, disparate impact discrimination involves policies or practices that appear neutral on their face but disproportionately affect members of protected classes. An example includes employment criteria like height or hair length that may indirectly discriminate against women or certain racial groups.

To address claims of discrimination, the process begins with a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This initial step triggers an investigation, which may be resolved through mediation. If mediation fails or is declined, the EEOC conducts a formal investigation. Should the EEOC find merit in the complaint, it attempts voluntary resolution with the employer. If resolution is refused or unsuccessful, the EEOC may file a lawsuit against the employer. Alternatively, it issues a "right-to-sue" letter, allowing the complainant to pursue a case in federal court (Moran, 2014).

Affirmative action emerged as a response to systemic, long-term discrimination. It involves proactive measures to rectify past injustices by favoring underrepresented protected classes in employment practices. For instance, courts or agencies may require employers with a history of discrimination to adopt plans that promote hiring or advancement of minorities or women. While affirmative action aims to foster workplace diversity and equality, it has sparked controversy, particularly concerning reverse discrimination — where efforts to promote equality might inadvertently disadvantage qualified individuals from majority groups (Williams & Arkin, 2013).

Reverse discrimination is a contentious issue, with legal cases challenging whether affirmative action policies unfairly favor certain groups at the expense of others. Courts have occasionally held that some affirmative action measures constitute reverse discrimination, especially if they lead to hiring unqualified candidates over more qualified ones (Moran, 2014). A related concern is determining the appropriate duration of affirmative action programs. The Supreme Court has yet to establish definitive criteria for how long these measures should remain in place to balance rectifying past discrimination and avoiding ongoing unfairness.

Legal cases and scholarly debates continue to shape the interpretation of these policies and their implications. The overarching goal remains ensuring equal opportunity without undue harm to any group, emphasizing the importance of legal frameworks, ethical considerations, and fair implementation of diversity initiatives (Williams & Arkin, 2013).

Furthermore, issues of racial harassment and discrimination extend beyond policies to workplace environments. For example, in the case of Brenda, an African American clerk-typist facing comments about her complexion from her supervisor, Joe, the situation raises questions about racial harassment and discrimination. If Brenda is denied promotion due to her race or skin tone, it may constitute race discrimination. Simultaneously, if her supervisor's comments create a hostile work environment, it aligns with racial harassment under employment law. Her colleagues' complicity in ignoring the remarks to avoid retaliation further underscores the importance of addressing workplace hostility and maintaining a culture of respect (Moran, 2014).

Similarly, cases such as that of Big Red Work Clothes Company showcase complexities around affirmative action and reverse discrimination. Although Big Red's longstanding policy to hire more females was court-approved as an affirmative action plan, critics argue that such policies may result in reverse discrimination, as seen when a qualified male applicant, Billy Jennings, is bypassed. Courts analyze whether such policies serve their remedial purpose or unjustly harm individuals from the majority group. The debate about the duration and fairness of affirmative action plans continues, with courts balancing the need to redress systemic inequalities against the risk of reverse discrimination (Williams & Arkin, 2013).

In the context of promotion and internal workplace dynamics, cases like Tara's illustrate indirect discrimination issues. Despite her qualifications and tenure, her employer's objection to her Irish accent reflects potential discrimination based on national origin or ethnicity. Under the Civil Rights Act, such discrimination can be challenged if the employer's decision adversely affects employment opportunities based solely on language or accent, unless it can be shown that language proficiency strictly relates to job performance. Addressing such issues involves understanding the processes for filing claims with the EEOC, which investigates and determines if discrimination occurred, and guiding employees on legal remedies (Moran, 2014).

Finally, employment practices such as residency requirements, like that imposed by the city of Pleasantville, raise questions about legality under the Civil Rights Act. While residency requirements may be justified for local employment policies, they could constitute disparate treatment if they unjustly exclude qualified applicants from outside the city without legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. Such policies must be evaluated for their impact and intent to ensure they do not violate anti-discrimination laws. Overall, employment law offers protections against various forms of discrimination and harassment, emphasizing fairness and equal opportunity for all individuals in the workplace.

References

  • Moran, J. J. (2014). Employment law: New challenges in the business environment (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  • Williams, P., & Arkin, D. (2013). Supreme Court takes on Affirmative Action in Michigan ban case. Case-F8C.
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Discrimination complaint process. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov
  • Bassett, R., & Hagan, J. (2017). Race, discrimination, and workplace harassment. Journal of Employment Law, 34(2), 78-95.
  • Bell, M. P. (2020). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Naff, K. (2016). Redressing systemic discrimination: Policies and practices. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 543-556.
  • Shah, R., & BhUI, H. (2019). Reverse discrimination and affirmative action debates. Law & Society Review, 53(1), 112-138.
  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). Guidelines on racial harassment. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov
  • Smith, A. (2018). Workplace policies and legal challenges. Workplace Law Journal, 22(3), 221-237.
  • Johnson, L. (2021). Language discrimination in the workplace. Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 36(4), 425-441.

Related Assignments