Griggs Vs Duke Power Case Study

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the single most important piece of legislation that has helped to shape and define employment law rights in this country (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001)". Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, gender, disability, religion and national

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.

How Title VII Affects the Workplace Paper 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.

Next a case relating to employment difficulties during the Black Civil rights movement was Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the year 1971. The ruling on this case by the Supreme Court was that Duke Power Company was « discriminating against black employees, » because their qualification for employment did « not pertain to applicants ' ability to perform the job,» but rather was influenced by other factors such as race, and therefore they were not hiring people in certain racial

Explore EEOC Web Site Introduction 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.

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.

Title VII applies to state and local governments with 15 or more employees and also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations including our federal government. Based on Title VII employment opportunities cannot be denied to any person based upon their race or perceived race or because of their marriage or association with a person or persons of a particular color or race. Title VII also prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions pertaining to the abilities, traits, or the performance of persons from certain racial groups. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate when recruiting, hiring, and promoting, transferring, also work assignments, performance measurements, the work environment, job training, discipline and discharge this also includes wages and benefits, and anything else including condition and the privilege of employment. Title VII not only prohibits intentional discrimination, it also covers neutral job policies that disproportionately affect any person of a certain race, color, nationality that are not related to the job and the needs of the

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on : Race, Color, Sex, Religion, and National Origin with respect to employment. “Specifically, it states that it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer” (Dressler, 2015, p. 28). “It established the concept of protected classes; those individuals who are protected from discrimination by the legal system. It prohibits discrimination in all employment practices. Title VII makes it unlawful to limit or classify employees in any way that deprives them of employment opportunities or hampers their career progression when that classification is based on their protected status” (SHRM). Title VII also established the EEOC Commission (EEOC) and applies to employers with 15 or more employees and most labor unions.

In the case of Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 the court reversed the judgment and because of the Civil Rights Act 1964 which prohibited the discrimination based on race, therefore, equitable relief to achieve its purposes, including the ability to award seniority retroactively. Due to the title 7 and Civil Rights Act of 64 which prohibits hiring discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin as well as in the case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974);same asMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973); as well as Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-430 (1971), in addtion, an ordained that its policy of outlawing such discrimination should have the "highest

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks In today’s legal environment, individual civil rights have been affected considerably by recent Supreme Court activity. In most cases when trying to prove employer discrimination, there are two main theories “pretext” and “pretext-plus” (Bickham & Clark, 2005)

Disparate impact and treatment on employees and employers The Civil Rights act of 1964 along with Title VII gives employees the option to sue business owners based on color, race, sexual orientation, and religion. This act, rules on the fact, that individuals can take action if a discrimination or harassment issues happens at the employer’s workplace. It expands Civil Rights statues to provide more protection against people who are victimized due to discrimination. It sets the guidelines for job related issues due to disparate impact or treatment issues. However, this act does not assure that everyone who faces discrimination will be employed because frankly he is a minority. If it is felt that there is a possibility of

Zack Oquendo 1 Dec., 2016 Human Resource Management Research Paper: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC laws are enforced. EEOC laws give citizens the ability to find a job without being discriminated upon race, religion, origin, or sex. There are many laws that have stemmed from this Civil Rights Act. I think that these laws have established a well-rounded society.

NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET Student: Dana Holbert THIS FORM MUST BE FILLED IN Holbert, D

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

Austen Thurmond December 1, 2016 MANA 3320 Equal Employment Opportunity Law 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.