Sidney Smith came across a job posting for a preschool teacher position at ABC Learning Incorporated, also known as ABC Inc. ABC Inc. is a well-known learning center that exclusively serves the homeless population. The learning center is made up of ninety percent African-American students and ten percent Hispanic. Half of the student population has a special need with supports needing to be in place for physical, cognitive, emotional, or behavioral disabilities. Twenty percent of the special need population have a combination of needs.<\/p>\n
After reviewing the
\nqualifications Sidney became ecstatic when she discovered that, she indeed, was
\nqualified for the position. The next day she completed the online application
\nand uploaded necessary documents such as resume and transcripts. A week later
\nshe received an email inviting her to visit ABC Inc. for an interview. The day
\nof the interview Sidney arrived fifteen minutes early and signed in at the
\nvisitor\u2019s window. The receptionist told her to have a seat and she will alert
\nthe director, Ms. Johnson to her arrival. Thirty-minutes passed as Sidney
\nwatched people travel to their destinations. Sidney seen this specific woman
\nwalk past several times, but this last time she heard her mumble how
\nunprofessional it is to be late for an interview. At that moment, Sidney stood
\nup and introduced herself. In a shocked manner, Ms. Johnson extended her hand
\nand introduced herself. She immediately apologized for overlooking her, for she
\nwas expecting someone that looked different. <\/p>\n
Throughout the interview
\nSidney became uncomfortable with the Ms. Johnson\u2019s line of questions regarding
\nher race and insinuation of Sidney not being a good fit to work in an urban
\nsetting. Despite the unprofessionalism Ms. Johnson displayed, Sidney was
\nhopeful in getting the job because of the impact she was looking forward to
\nmaking in the lives of the students and families in her class. At the
\nconclusion of the interview, Ms. Johnson stated that a hiring decision should
\nbe made by the end of the week. More than a month had past before Sidney heard
\nanything from ABC Inc., but when she did, they extended her a job offer. She
\naccepted the offer and explained to Ms. Johnson how she now has a service dog
\nthat travels everywhere she goes. Ms. Johnson arrogantly responded with a
\ncomment stating that Sidney did not look like a person in need of a service dog
\nand that pets were not allowed in the building. Sidney located several
\nresources that explained that employers are required to extend reasonable
\naccommodations to employees with disabilities in the workplace. She also stated
\nthat if ABC Inc. was not willing to attempt to accommodate her, she will file a
\ncomplaint through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A week later,
\nSidney received an email stating that her offer had been rescinded due to
\nbudgetary cuts. <\/p>\n
The actions Ms. Johnson
\ndisplayed towards Sidney are illegal acts of workplace discrimination related
\nto race, disability, and retaliation. Unfortunately, despite the numerous laws
\nin place to protect individuals against these experiences, discrimination still
\noccurs. Some of the laws are the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination
\nin Employment Act of 1967, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of
\n2008. For relevancy purposes we will
\ndiscuss Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the amendment of 1991, Title
\nI of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the 2008 amendment. We will
\nfurther discuss the research methodology implemented to gather information, and
\nresources used to acquire information. Then we will take a deeper look at
\ndiscrimination in the workplace, review law suits pertitent to Title VII of the
\nCivil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last, we will examine
\nthe results of the research and evaluate learning outcomes. <\/p>\n
The focus of this paper
\nwill be discrimination in the forms of race, retaliation, and disability as it
\npertains to hiring and firing within organizations. Hexel et al, of Harvard
\nBusiness School, states that, \u201chiring discrimination against Blacks have not
\ndeclined in over twenty-five years\u201d (2017). Historically, discrimination has
\nbeen difficult to measure. This was until the Harvard Business School embarked
\nupon a study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
\nthat measured trends in discrimination since 1990. Twenty-four field
\nexperiments were measured of 54,000 applicants across 25,000 positions. Using
\nresume audits and in-person audits, the researchers submitted fabricated
\nresumes with qualifications equitable across the board. The resumes had
\nethnically identifiable names to measure the outcome of their theory. Data
\nreflective in call back rates alone, shown a thirty-six percent higher call
\nback rate for White applicants than Black and twenty-four percent higher call
\nback rate than Latino applicants. <\/p>\n
Another group suffering
\nfrom workplace discrimination is disabled workers. Since the creation of the
\nAmericans with Disabilities Act the gap between disabled and non-disabled
\nworkers have increased. Disabled workers are employed at a forty-one percent
\nrate where they use to be employed at a fifty percent rate. In an article by Bhattacharya
\nand Long, they discuss the difficulties disabled citizens have in America
\n(2015). Starting with the story of Jordan Gallacher who obtained a bachelor\u2019s
\ndegree in management and entrepreneurship and has not had a job in three years.
\nWhen employers discover that he is blind, he receives a rejection letter
\nindicating he was not chosen for the position. Additional barriers Jordan and
\nhis disabled counterparts face include low wage jobs. Disabled workers make nine
\nthousand dollars less than non-disabled people (Bhattacharya and Long, 2015). <\/p>\n
Unfortunately, As we turn our attention The Civil Rights Act was created to protect and provide injunctive relief to individuals against discrimination in public facilities, public education, and federally assisted programs. Specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explains that is illegal to discriminate against an individual, in the employment acts of hiring, firing, discriminate in compensation, employment privileges, terms, and conditions, against an employee or potential employee as related to their race, sex, national origin, religion, or color (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018). To explain even further, \u201cThe rationale expressed by Congress for Title VII was to \u201cassure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate those discriminatory practices and devices which have fostered racially stratified job environments to the disadvantage of minority citizens\u201d (Hagen, 2011). This law is applicable to employers of a staff with fifteen or more employees for each working day of twenty or more calendar week (current and proceeding). In 1991, there was an amendment to the act which allowed trials by jury and punitive and compensatory rewards where discrimination had been proven to occurred. <\/p>\n Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 bans state and local government agencies, private employers, employment agencies and labor union from discriminating against qualified job applicants due to a disability (Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). This law is valid for employers that have a staff size of fifteen or more and prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, social activities, and other privileges of employment. The law also dictates that questions about an applicant\u2019s disability before a job offer is made is prohibited. Should an employee disclose that they are in need of workplace accommodations, its is the employer\u2019s responsibility to establish a reasonable accommodation unless it causes an undue hardship. <\/p>\n In the case of EEOC v. Jacksons Food Stores, Inc., Nathaniel Prugh, seeking employment with the food store applied for a vacant position. Based on his qualifications and experience in working similar jobs Nathaniel was given the opportunity to interview with Jackson Food Stores. Sowell writes in his article, Feds Says Jackson Discriminated Against Injured Dispatcher, Deaf Applicant, <\/em>when he notified the store that he was deaf and in need of an interpreter the manager denied Nathaniel\u2019s request for an interpreter and cancelled the interview (2017). In press release dated September 7, 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Jackson Food Stores agreed to settle the lawsuit in the amount of eighty-eight thousand dollars in lost wages and damages. In addition, Jackson Food Stores must hire Nathaniel, as well as, train staff regarding the hiring and reasonable accommodations of the ADA act. Last, Jackson Food Stores are mandated to distribute a modified version of the ADA policy and post a notice for employees about the consent decree and their rights under the ADA (Jacksons Foods Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit, 2018).<\/p>\n In a second discrimination lawsuit with a retaliation twist, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed charges against Jackson Food Stores on behalf of Penny Wightman. Penny was an employee that suffered a wrist injury requiring that she undergo surgery followed by physical therapy and medication for pain management. When Penny was released by her doctor to return to work, she was able to do so with restrictions. After Penny\u2019s return she was told by management to train a colleague to satisfy her role. A week after training ended, Penny was forced to go on medical leave by management and never returned due to being terminated during her absence. This case is still being litigated, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is seeking backpay, interest, and punitive damages (Sowell, 2017).<\/p>\n The Equal Opportunity Commission presented a lawsuit of racial discrimination against Hospman LLC in the termination of their African American employees at the onset of new management of the Fort Meyers Hotel. Hospman terminated several African American employees in August of 2012 prior to directing the housekeeping manager, Trinica Jones, to fire African Americans on her team. The CEO, Jose Carlhavo questioned Trinica\u2019s race because she \u2018looked Spanish\u2019. Trinica informed Jose that she was half African American and as a result was told her services will no longer be needed (Brasch, 2015). It is reported that former Hospman\u2019s chief executive officer stated that does not work with those kinds of people, referring to the African America staff members. As a result of this lawsuit, Hospman is required to pay thirty-five thousand dollars to be distributed amongst the discrimination victims, revise policies regarding race discrimination, conduct training to managers and supervisors surrounding Title VII requirements, post a notice about the lawsuit to its employees, and report to the equal employment opportunity commission any complaints regarding race discrimination and company\u2019s employment practices (Hospman Settles EEOC Race Discrimination Lawsuit, 2017). <\/p>\n I\u2019ve learned quite a bit in regard to the laws, discrimination, and staffing while compiling this paper. I find it interesting that discrimination amongst disabled workers have increased since the creation of the American with Disabilities Act. Similarly, how discrimination amongst Blacks has been stagnant over the past twenty-five years. The true revelation throughout this process is the support hiring managers and human resources professionals need surrounding employment law. Both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act were established twenty plus years ago, however, discrimination still exists and is rising. As a part of strategic staffing within an organization it is important to collaborate with different teams to train employees on workplace discrimination, train managers on best practices for hiring, work with HR data teams to pull data surrounding applicants, and more. <\/p>\n In The focus of this paper will be discrimination in the forms of race, retaliation, and disability as it pertains to hiring and firing within organizations. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42],"tags":[84],"class_list":["post-268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essaysemployment-law","tag-us-law"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nemployment discrimination in the workplace is rising at an alarming rate. In
\nthe article, Why Are Employment
\nDiscrimination Lawsuits Rising So Rapidly<\/em>, the statistics show that in
\n2016, the top three discriminatory lawsuits were due to retaliation (45.9%),
\nrace (35.3%), and disability (30.7%) (Lucas, 2018). Discrimination lawsuits are
\non the rise due to increased awareness. Although, the laws discussed in this
\npaper were created more than three decades ago, with the rise in awareness to
\nprevent discrimination in the workplace through training programs, light is
\nshed on past and\/or future discriminatory practices an employee may have
\nexperienced. Increased coverage of discrimination has also prompted a rise in
\nlawsuits as victims are realizing something can be done and they are not alone.
\nThe word discrimination was mentioned over 1600 times in the New York Times and
\nover 2000 times in the Washington Post in 2017 (Lucas, 2018). Social media also
\nplays a part as people take to social platforms like Facebook or Twitter to
\ndetail their experiences of discrimination with employers. The magnitude of
\npeople reached on these platforms surpass traditional practices of filing a
\ncomplaint or reaching out to a human resources representative because a single
\npost can land on the timeline of millions of followers throughout the world. <\/p>\nLiterature Review<\/h3>\n
\nto the laws that govern workplace discrimination, we will review the Americans
\nwith Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 2008 amendment,<\/strong> as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its 1991 amendment.
\nFollowing, we will discuss lawsuits that the Equal Employment Opportunity
\nCommission filed against Jackson Food Stores and Fort Meyers Hotel of Hospman
\nLLC related to the above-mentioned laws and reflect how these practices impact
\nstrategic staffing within an organization. <\/p>\nTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act<\/h4>\n
The American with Disabilities Act<\/h4>\n
Disability Discrimination and Retaliation<\/h4>\n
Racial Discrimination<\/h3>\n
Results<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h3>\n
\nconclusion, my choice to conduct research on employment laws and lawsuits was
\ndriven by my interest and current line of work. The approach I took to gather
\ninformation concerning the topic was a combination of gathering quantitative
\nand qualitative information from a variety of sources like the DeVry Library,
\nthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website, and other professional
\nbased human resources sites. The topic of race, disability, and retaliatory
\ndiscrimination in workplace brought about large amounts of information of the
\nillegal practice happening throughout the nation. We took a closer look by
\nreviewing the court cases the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed
\nagainst Jackson Food Services and Hampson LLC of Fort Meyer Hotel. Based on the
\nresearch, staffing teams can become more strategic in accomplishing
\norganizational goals by supporting hiring managers in providing training
\nsurrounding best practices, use data to review applicant information, and
\nremain in the loop of updates to employment law. <\/p>\nReferences<\/h3>\n
\n