Legal Incentives For Anti-Discrimination Policies

In this assignment, I will be describing how anti-discriminatory practice is promoted in health and social care settings. I will discuss difficulties that may arise when implementing anti-discriminatory practice in health and social care settings and justify ways of overcoming difficulties that may arise when implementing anti-discriminatory practice in health and social care settings.

The EEOC guidelines recommend that an employer's remedy should be "immediate and appropriate." Employers have a duty to "express strong disapproval" of sexual harassment, and to "develop appropriate sanctions." The EEOC explains that an employer's action is appropriate where it fully remedies the conduct without adversely affecting the terms or conditions of the charging party's employment in some manner (Ellison v. Brady, 1991).

A major part of Title VII is the addition of the way that the Supreme Court infers violations of Title VII in regards to harassment. The term harassment was not even used in the original development of the law but the Supreme Court has set precedent when it comes to employees being made to work in a hostile work environment. According to the Supreme Court, the law has been broken when an employer creates an environment that alters the terms of the conditions of the employment contract.

1. Service users suffered gross neglect such as little or no support to wash and shower, left for hours in wet and dirty beds and refused to help. Also service users are forced to share rooms. (Care Standards Act 2002)

Our textbook defines sexual harassment, also known as gender harassment, as “Lewd remarks, touching, intimidation, posting of indecent materials, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that occurs on the job” (pg. 552). AAUW describes sexual harassment as a general description of unwanted sexual advances, request for sexual favors, or other verbal/physical conduct of any sexual nature. Even with Title VII’s protections, numerous people throughout the country still experience sexual harassment in the workplace. We can look at the Waldo v. Consumer Energy Company federal court case, found on page 552, as an example of sexual harassment at work and the consequences associated with the

The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability. Employers are required to modify spaces to accommodate those with disabilities, such as installing ramps, unless the cost of doing so would cause undue hardship. They must also make other reasonable accommodations such as providing user friendly equipment and modifying training programs and schedules (Cascio & Aquinis, 2011). The EEOC offers resources for employers to help them understand and comply with ADA laws (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2008). Sexual harassment can fall under two categories, quid pro quo or hostile work environment and is detailed under Title VII by the EEOC

I think there not enough regulations of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts that deals with sexual harassment and discrimination. I feel that employers should be required to train managers and employees to what qualifies as sexual harassment and discrimination. Though, I believe that the Civil Right Acts, which was used to develop other forms of anti-discrimination laws and policies with the U.S marketplace. I feel that the service and retail industry could best be benefit from regulations and laws that would require these train their managers and employees with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts.

Through the past couple hundred years, many minorities have faced detrimental discrimination. Those who have been heavy targets are Black Americans. It is common to hear that slavery is over, but those groups still face discrimination today. Why are these minorities paying the price? Institutional discrimination is the cause to this madness. Those who have authority over the average citizen extending their power rights and preforming non-relevant; like over policing the black americans.This is common in everyday scenarios, the courtrooms, the school grounds, and the streets. It starts when these groups are young.

With the concept of "all men are created equal," our founding fathers had envisioned an idealistic utopian country where our unalienable and natural rights can't be infringed. The concept was truly appealing to American citizens, but unfortunately, it was written with only straight and wealthy white men in mind at the time. Discrimination was clearly a huge factor in why this concept and statement is considered a hypocrisy. Women, people of color, different religious beliefs, and the LGBT community had experienced discrimination for many decades since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It's not to say that our country hasn't made any progress, but it sure definitely doesn't live up to the expectations of equality for all. Some

Think of Discrimination as a line segment, it will continue to go on unless an end is put to it. In the United States those endpoints have not yet been added. Discrimination comes in many different ways, and it seems to happen pretty much everywhere.Everyone experiences some type of discrimination in their lifetime. Discrimination is treating someone differently because of who they are, or their preference of a particular group. People all around claim that discrimination has ended a long time ago, but they are the ones that are doing it daily. It is hard to really notice that discrimination is still happening. People are constantly comparing things together, they are constantly looking for the better view, and the better form. America is known mainly for their different cultures, languages, and religions, but when discrimination is happening to Americans than Americans start questioning. People come here to get away from the problem but will come here to encounter many different ones that are sometimes bigger than the ones they tried to get away from. The thought of discrimination is lingering on in people's minds, but it still continues to happen to different kinds of people and almost everywhere.

Generally people or groups become stigmatized when they are singled out from their communities or their social environments. Being stigmatic is not a way to win over moral acceptance. When individuals are “set out” or even profiled they often feel as if they have been uprooted and a subject of discrimination. Which makes them loose faith in there government. Moral repercussions like this effect individuals and communities as a whole and can have serious and negative impacts when groups or individuals speak out and acknowledge the discrimination. This can lead to social or cultural tensions within a governed body.

The Court of Appeals overturned that a violation of Title VII may predicate on either of two types of sexual harassment, employment benefits on sexual favors, and a hostile or offensive working environment. As to the bank 's liability, the Court of Appeals held that an employer is liable for sexual harassment by supervisory personnel, whether or not the employer knew or should have known about it. US Supreme Court (1986)

When most people thing of compensation and diversity in the same category, they assume the discussion will be under the umbrella of discriminatory practices against women and minorities. However, compensation and benefits are tools at the disposal of human resources professionals for recruiting and retaining a diverse employee pool even in the absence of a formal diversity management programs. Like a properly executed training and development program, benefits packages can also be levied to attract and retain workers, as well as motivate them. Employees have multiple needs that vary based on age, family, cultural values, and stage of career, and human resources departments are tasked with finding solutions to accommodate this wide range of concerns, without anyone feeling as though they are being treated unfairly. While benefits like on-site daycare would work wonders to attract and retain parents of small children, offering such a pricey perk to that is only useful to a certain segment of the employee pool can be off-putting to other workers. Finding the balance between the needs of the company, needs of the employees, and the perception of fairness is critical.

As seen in the case study, a court decision may be one way for any company to legally define what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, but there are many ways to define sexual harassment. Everyone has different views and tolerance levels towards sexual harassment. When a case of sexual harassment occurs in a workplace, however, it comes down to how the courts define sexual harassment. The Supreme Court defines sexual harassment to be unlawful in two ways. “The first type involves sexual harassment that results in a tangible employment action;” this is referred to as quid pro quo. For example, if an employee complies with the harasser’s request, then she will get a raise. This unlawful act is usually presented in the workplace by a person who has an upper hand, such as a manager, to ensure that s/he will get what s/he wants. Employees are often victimized by fear that they will not get promoted or that they will get fired. They also dread that if a complaint is filed, it will not be handled correctly. “This instance of sexual harassment always involves another violation of employee rights; [sic] wrongful termination.” This would occur, for instance, when “a supervisor . . . tells a subordinate that . . . she must be sexually cooperative with [him] or . . . she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting” (“U.S. Supreme Court Defines”). [schwinlaw.com]

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by