Disparate Treatment Research Paper

What is discrimination you ask well it is the treatment or consideration of, or making

Title VII Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin (EEOC, 1997). This law applies to federal, state and local employers. The above conditions may not be used to refuse to hire or for terminating an individual or in other words discriminate against any individual (EEOC, 1997). In order to release an employee in any of the above categories the employer must have documentation based on quantity or quality of production and the employer can also make this decision based on results of a professionally developed ability test, which cannot be used to discriminate (EEOC, 1997). If an employee feels they have been let go for an unjust reason they can file a formal

Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination. It exists when individuals are treated differently in a similar situation. It is based on considerations of age, race, color, disability status, religion, gender, or national origin.

Employers that base employment decisions, including hiring and promotion, on protected class characteristics are engaging in disparate treatment. When they do so overtly and argue that it is necessary to limit a particular type of employment to people with specific protected class characteristics, this type of disparate treatment is termed a facially discriminator policy or practice. An important, but limited, defense is available to employers that adopt facially discriminatory requirement is legal. If an employer can show that a particular protected class characteristic is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job in question, the facially discriminatory requirement is legal. According to the Title VII of the Civil Right Act,

Federal (Title VII) and State legislation prohibit intentional discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and prohibit both “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” discrimination.

Unlawful discrimination occurs when an employer commits an adverse action against an employee because of the following attributes of the person: race, color, sex, age, pregnancy, etc.

As defined by the United States' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), "It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex." Harassment can include "sexual harassment" or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. I also want to point out that it is illegal to discriminate against employees who have an injury or disability, or who file any type of compensation claim.

The United States Supreme Court, as well as federal district and state courts, defines employee rights and an employer’s liability for employment law violations. Treatment on the job, including hiring, firing, and promotions, must be based on qualifications and merit and not on race, gender, age, sexual preference or how one responds to sexual advances. Yet despite these laws and policies, many employees continue to suffer from workplace harassment and employment discrimination.

Disparate treatment is a worse offence than adverse impact because adverse impact is not necessarily intentional, and disparate treatment is intentional. Based on ethics, if a disparate treatment case is proven, it says very bad things about the employer, and depending on the case, it says the employer has been acting races, sexist, or engaging in a different form of discrimination. Adverse impact can have the same results as disparate treatment, but it does not mean the employer was discriminating on purpose. It is still bad, and the employer should not allow it to happen, but it is not quite as bad as disparate treatment if it is not intentional. Overall, both are very bad, and employers should do everything possible to avoid these kinds

Laws against discrimination- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that no person employed or seeking employment by a business with more than 15 employees may be discriminated against due to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Lee, 1998). This Act

According to the Legal Dictionary (2014), “The Wards Cove decision was severely criticized by Civil Rights leaders, who believed the Supreme Court had made disparate impact cases almost impossible to win” (p.1). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was in effect. This act proposed that employees must have proof in showing that the employer committed a disparate impact crime. No longer would it allow the victims to argue against the company based on their own views. At the same time the owner must show evidence that there is a crime committed based on these findings. Title VII along with the Civil Rights Act would dismiss any further rulings on this matter. The Supreme Court has adjusted some of the compensation methods for the disparate impact theory. It is against the law for an employer to allow different standards, conditions, or terms of the job to their workers. This

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (2009).

When a person is discriminated against their race, gender, and age. This is some of the most evident forms of discrimination. I believe the most qualified person should receive the job, regardless of race or ethnicity. When employers disrupt workplace discrimination, legally they can be sued by the person or persons and receive bad publicity. When a employee hurts from unfair treatment due to their race and religion. Proving discrimination is difficult as is can occur in a number of work-related areas, during your initial hiring phase, during training or even after you get the job and have to participate in job evaluations. As far as ethnicity goes, Americans come in every color, shape, and size and a successful business is one that understands

Disparate act refers to a neutral employment practice whereby a disparity is created between the number of minority individuals available for hire and the number of minorities hired. In HRM, disparate act is a concern for employers or companies that single out specific groups during recruitment and hiring of employees (Dessler, 2013, p. 178). This makes it unlawful and the employer is liable for disparate act. In practice, disparate act is a concern if an employer hires a predominantly Caucasian workforce

Discrimination in the workplace occurs when an employee experiences harsh or unfair treatment due to their race, religion, national origin, disabled or veteran status, or other legally protected characteristics. Discrimination is one of the biggest problems people face in the workplace and it must be dealt with forcefully.