Griggs Vs Duke Power

In the United States, companies of all shapes and sizes must adhere to nondiscrimination policies and practices that prohibits against any and all various types of conduct based on certain characteristics when it comes to the hire, fire, and relationship with their employees (Canas & Sondak, 2014). As a member of the workforce, we would hope and assume that we wouldn’t have to deal with discrimination anymore. Don’t get me wrong, our country has grown so much over the years when it comes to tackling discrimination in the workplace. It’s just unfortunate that it’s just not natural for organizations and companies to naturally be ethical and moral when it comes to their treatment of their potential applicants or current employees. There are still cases of discrimination currently in our society. It may not be as severe compared to before the modern civil rights era, but discrimination still does exist. With all due respect, an adequate amount of the laws are simple and are able to be understood easily but at the same time, there are other parts of discrimination and harassment laws that can be more difficult for one to understand and are more open to one’s interpretation (Canas & Sondak, 2014). One example of a recent discrimination case is of Calibuso et al V. Bank of America Corp. et al.

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.

First, Title VII outlaws employers from treating applicants or employees differently because of their membership in a protected class unless the employer demonstrates that race, gender, or national origin is an authentic and genuine occupational qualification. Furthermore, disparate treatment plaintiffs rely on direct, relative, and specific evidence to meet their burden of persuasion. Second, in Griggs v. Duke Power, Likewise, the Supreme Court also recognized so-called disparate impact Title VII claims when it ruled that Title VII prohibits neutral employment practices that had a statistically disparate impact on members of protected classes such as race, gender, national origin, and etc. unless employers provided evidence that the selection instruments were justified as job-related and no secondary discriminatory alternative existed (Roberts, 2010). Disparate impact plaintiffs rely heavily on statistical evidence to provide prima facie evidence of disparate impact discrimination. Of particular importance is the fact that the Supreme Court has rejected the use of only one type of statistical evidence to meet the prima facie evidence requirement in disparate impact

The disparate impact, on the other hand, denotes the practices in hiring as well as other sectors that unfavorably distress a certain diverse group in the protected classes more than others. This is despite having neutral rules applied by the employers. These violations can be shown by providing evidence that the employment policies and practices have excessively negative effects on the protected group as compared with others (Schneider, 2010). Consequently, the disparate impact forbids the employers from utilizing a facially unbiased hiring practice that has an unfounded hostile effect on the specified protected group. The disparate impact is mostly inadvertent; however, the

Racial discrimination has been a major issue since the colonial era and the slave era. In the aftermath of the Civil War, the United States abolished slavery and gave blacks the legal right to join the workforce. Workplace discrimination occurs when employers treat certain potential or current employees unfairly because of various issues, including age, race, gender, disability, nationality, religion and pregnancy. Discrimination also takes place when men and women working for the same employer do not receive equal pay for equal work. Under job discrimination laws, it is illegal for employers to engage in any of these practices. Blacks and other minority have faced many racial discrimination issues in the workplace such as harassment, landing a job, and not receiving promotions even if they have all of the qualifications. According to Heathfield, Human Resources Expert, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352) outlawed the unequal application of voter registration requirements and discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment. Specifically, for employers, in the Civil Rights Act, Title 7 guaranteed equal opportunity in employment. The Civil Rights Act also established the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) to "promote equal opportunity in employment through administrative and judicial enforcement of the federal civil rights laws and through education and technical assistance”. Every employee and employer should be aware of

The issue of discrimination is very widely discussed, so widely that laws and statutes have been enacted and are continually addressed every day. This may occur in a courtroom, on the legislative floor or at the employer’s offices, but the fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) receives around 80,000 discriminatory filings annually, with 99,922 in 2010, there is little wonder the amount of attention to discrimination is warranted (Walsh, 2013). According to the EEOC’s website, the discrimination claims were more than the annual averages, but less than 99,000 in 2010, at 88,788 in 2014 (“EEOC Releases Fiscal”, 2015). These figures reiterate the importance and diligence in which discriminatory acts must be handled by all parties involved.

Since adverse impact does not require proof of intentional discriminatory behavior, an individual just needs to present a prima facie case showing that an employment practice could be discriminatory. A person who believes they are a victim of adverse impact poses that a seemingly benign requirement limits the applicants that are in said minority group causing a disproportionate pool of applicants. Adverse impact claims used statistical

The uniform guidelines were developed after the decision made in the 1971 court case of Griggs v Duke Power, where the supreme court ruled that any selection procedure a test with adverse impact is unlawfully discriminatory unless it has been validated in accordance with several guidelines they had produced. Afterward if adverse impact was suspected, these guidelines served as a checklist to see if the selection procedure in use by the organization in question were incompliance with Federal law prohibiting employment practices which discriminate based on race, colour, religion, sex and national origin. The guidelines are also used in the design of selection procedures to minimize adverse impact, often with adherence to additional professional

The case of Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) brought to the forefront issues that Human Resource professionals may have to address within their organization. This case centered on disparate impact and disparate impact. Although these terms are used, interchangeable impact would prove to be significant in that case. This case centered around Duke Power openly discriminated against a protected class (blacks). In order to be hired into any department other than labor, the company required a high school diploma and/ or a passing score on two tests. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Despite this passage,

Racial discrimination continues to be a prominent problem in today’s society. It has been prohibited federally since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (title VII). Despite being a law for over 50 years, major companies continue to have issues with racial discrimination. In fact, the most common type of discrimination employees report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is racial discrimination. The U.S. EEOC enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies. Racial discrimination practices that are prohibited include hiring/firing, compensations, classifications, promotions, layoffs, recruitment, training/apprenticeship programs, and leave decided based on race. Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination (EEOC).

All employers must continuously provide appropriate training and education to their employees addressing every type of discrimination. First, innovative and unique

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

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.

Discrimination occurs when an employee suffers from unfavorable or unfair treatment due to their race, religion, national origin, disabled or veteran status, or other legally protected characteristics. Employees who have suffered reprisals for opposing workplace discrimination or for reporting violations to the authorities are also considered to be discriminated against. Federal law prohibits discrimination in work-related areas, such as recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. (employeeissues.com, 2006)