David Baldwin Vs. Anthony Foxx, Department Of Transportation

Over the last several decades, workplace issues have become an area of controversy for most employers. This is because the regulations surrounding what practices are considered to be discriminatory have increased dramatically. To enforce these issues, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) is playing a central role in making employers follow these provisions of the law. A recent example of this occurred, with the case EEOC v. HCS Medical Staffing Inc.

The purpose of this paper is to go over a lawsuit that was filled by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The paper will cover who the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is and their role in the lawsuit. It will go over whether or not the lawsuit promotes social change. The paper will also go over how the EEOC as well as other news groups released information about the case to the public. I will then give my take on how I would implement new strategies to make sure the problem does not come up in the workplace again.

The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.

An employee is refused e.g. training or lost a job, because of their beliefs, race or sexuality

A Senior Louisiana State trooper Steven Vincent, 43, was dead after receiving two gunshots in his head by a gunman, at the side of the road in Bell City, Louisiana, on Monday. Vincent was supposed to help a possibly impaired driver who was also responsible for his death.

Through the years, America has made an overall improvement in eliminating discrimination, inequality and slavery and focusing more on inclusion, equal rights, and equal opportunity. Despite a considerable improvement, there are corporations and individuals that often revert to archaic means of treating employees, creating hostile environments. Consequently, different advocacy groups and laws still remain in effect and continue to evolve to protect the citizens and non-citizens of the USA.

Discrimination against worker on basis of their sexual orientation and racial discrimination adversely affects the economic performance of companies in the various ways: First, in the business environment the new truth is one that puts a premium on gifted labor. Therefore, companies must make hiring verdicts solely based on an applicant’s qualifications and capabilities that associate to performance on the task if they are to outdo the rivalry. When companies hire persons on the grounds of job-irrelevant aspects such as racial discrimination and sexual orientation businesses are left with an inferior workforce that weakens their capability to produce healthy returns (Oeo.tufts.edu, 2015).

If an employer treats some job applicants who are protected under the civil rights laws less favorably than others because of their protected status, the applicant may have a Title VII claim. A causal connection between the applicant's protected status and less favorable treatment may be proven under a disparate treatment theory. Equally important, proof of discriminatory intent is required in a disparate treatment case. The employer's motivation and intent can be proven through circumstantial evidence that the job applicant was treated less favorably than similarly situated job applicants outside of the protected class. Essentially, the burden of proof for a Title VII disparate treatment case is based upon the burden-shifting test that the United States Supreme Court articulated in McDonnell Douglas Gorp. v. Green. In this influential case, the Court established the well organized framework to determine whether employment discrimination occurred due to disparate treatment. To prove a prima facie case in an employment discrimination case based on disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show that he/she is a member of a protected class who applied for and was qualified for a position but was rejected based on his protected status. The

Mr. Delwin Vriend was employed at King’s College, a Christian college in Edmonton Alberta, as a lab instructor in computer science, from 1987-1991. During Mr. Vriend’s 5 year employment, he received salary increases, positive evaluations and promotions for his work performance, which acknowledged his competence and his ability to perform his work. In 1991, after the college’s Board of Governor’s adopted a new position statement on homosexuality, the President of the college requested Delwin to resign, which he declined. Mr. Vriend had disclosed his sexual orientation to the President of the college the year prior to this new position stance. After Vriend declined to resign, the college terminated his employment for the sole reason (1)“his non-compliance with the college’s policy on homosexual practice”; he is a gay man.

In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws have helped shape the workforce today and they have greatly contributed to the introduction of diversity in the working environment. No longer are people rejected of employment based on their race, gender, age, or disability. The labor force has increased from 62 million people in 1950 to over 159 million people in the labor force today (Toolsi). The passing of the EEO laws proved to be a great advancement in the diversity of the workforce and treatment of employees, but it was a tremendous battle to get where we are today. Before the passing of these laws, unequal treatment was normal and discrimination was common among the majority of employers. This made acquiring employment difficult and caused many people to be unemployed. Three Equal Employment Opportunity laws that helped diminish these discriminatory practices were Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. For each law, I will describe what it enforces and explain the actions that happened in society and the workplace that made these laws necessary. I will discuss important political figures that contributed to the passing of these laws. Lastly, I will examine how each law has improved human resources and has led to better management of employees overall.

While equal rights and equal pay legislation made it illegal to discriminate “based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin“ (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011b, p. 1), the number of workplace discrimination cases continue to rise and is costing employers more than $319 million in 2010, not counting litigation (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011a). Many employers have extensive human resource organizations with a sophisticated grasp on the implications of equal rights legislation on employers, that employ professionals, like I/O psychologists and attorneys, to establish fair policies and employment practices, and decrease an employer’s risk of litigation (Aamodt, 2010). In fact, employers often perform statistical analysis of employment practices to understand whether the practice could have an adverse impact against members of a protected class. For example, testing is a practice employers use for employee selection in the hiring process; even when an employment test is determined to be reliable, valid, and cost-efficient, care is taken to assure testing predicts performance equally well for all applications (Aamodt, 2010). Because governments and corporations have a fiduciary duty to citizens and shareholders, employers should continue to care about the issue of adverse impact, but more importantly, both government and corporations have a civil responsibility to treat the members of society fairly, because societal

See Chapter 3 - Equal Employment Opportunity and Human Resources Management: Case Study 2: Misplaced Affections: Discharge for Sexual Harassment

Sexism is the behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Discrimination is the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people. This paper will discuss and focus on the EO violations areas that include actions based on prejudicial and discriminative behaviors and how service member who takes an inappropriate action in any of these two areas will be accused of a discriminative attitude that breached the foundations of the EO program, which include race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.

The criminal just system should view all people no matter what their race, gender, or social class is. In a world where Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people are being slandered, it is hard for them to get jobs because of their sexual preferences or how they identify. Gays and lesbians who choose to come out around “straight” people they work with will probably face at least some (if not much) discrimination. During work, “discrimination based on sexual orientation must not be tolerated in any form in modern law enforcement. Instead of prejudice and intolerance, police departments and chief executives should embrace a “Do Ask, Do Tell” attitude toward gays and lesbians (Winchell, 2008)”. They will go out of their way to cause harm either (physically/ mentally), professional humiliation, and the refusal of some heterosexual officers to work in close proximity with the LGBT officers. Instead of discriminating on others, officers should begin to judge based on the quality of their work and strength of character.