Summary Of Griggs And Price Waterhouse Vs. Hopkins

In a study that was reviewed by Deitch and her colleagues (2003), blacks were interviewed at work about whether the felt they were being discriminated. Most participants had difficulty answering because they were not sure whether discrimination was linked to their race or different factors like gender. Such inconclusive research only adds to the haziness of work related issues defined as ones of “racial discrimination” (Deitch, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief & Bradley).

Hopkins v. Price-Waterhouse is a very detailed case, that features many aspects of the patriarchy, and lingering ways of thinking about gender that are hopefully being phased out of modern society. The Supreme Court chose not to make a ruling, which was the right decision in a legal sense, though there was more proof that Hopkins was discriminated against.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee. An employer cannot discriminate due to a person’s color, religion, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, age (40 years or older), genetic information or disability. This applies to wages, harassment, training, benefits, hiring, and firing. EEOC’s role in any investigation of discrimination is to accurately and fairly take in the information of the charge and then make a finding. If the EEOC found that there was indeed a discriminating case then they will try to settle it. If the employer does not settle then the EEOC may file a lawsuit. (Overview.

Mr. Vicks, with all due respect, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed due to racial discrimination. As an organization, we are prohibited from making hiring decisions based on age; color; disability; genetic information; marital status; national origin; pregnancy; race; religion and sexual orientation (Mathis, 2017). Not to mention, if the applicant or employee can prove that they were denied employment or promotion based on their race, they can present a disparate treatment claim with EEOC, especially if he or she had the qualifications.

A way to achieve fair employment for all people happened in 1961 when President John Kennedy, used the phrase “Affirmative Action” in the United States in which it attributed to Executive Order 10925”. (Sterba, 2009, p.15) The reality was that businesses needed a way to hold accountability for employee’s applicants to be treated fairly in promotional decisions and the hiring process. Employment discrimination and segregation was legal in the United States before 1964. White workers and black workers during that time almost never worked together in the same jobs. Minorities were grouped in lower paying and less status jobs. During that era, white males

Affirmative Action is constantly seen as an unfair intentional treatment to classes not protected by anti-discrimination laws. This paper will describe the elements of affirmative action and how it applies to employees in the private and public sector. It will also show how affirmative action interacts with Title VII requirements of Equal Employment Opportunity.

Duke Power, a company being sued by its ethnic minority employees this included Willie Griggs. Griggs would be filing the class action law suit along with several of his fellow co-workers for unfair processes in which attaining a promotion or higher paying position was met by having a high school diploma and undergoing IQ testing. Prior to the civil rights act Blacks were only allowed to work in the company’s labor department, which happened to harbor its lowest paying positions as well. After the implementation of IQ testing and the requirement of holding a high school diploma it was found that Blacks were being selected at a lower rate for higher positions than their white counterparts. Considered the first case of its type Griggs v. Duke Power Co. was taken before the Supreme Court of the United States where it was found that the requirements were not relevant to an employee’s ability to perform a job. Therefore it was ruled that Duke Power Co. promotion practices were discriminating against its black employees.

The first court case in the United States that addressed Affirmative action was the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. In this case, minority’s employees

This includes being hired, promoted, terminated, and even training benefits. “Proponents of affirmative action argue that this is fair and appropriate, given our country’s long history of discrimination, and is the only way to create truly equal opportunity for groups that are disadvantaged” (Guerin). Even though Affirmative Action may be seen as necessary to create equal opportunity, it can create problems when it benefits someone in the workplace. An example of Affirmative Action in the workplace would be very similar to Affirmative Action in higher education. A more specific example would be a Caucasian man applying for the same job as a Chinese man. After interviews, the Caucasian man is much more qualified for the job, yet the Chinese man gets hired ahead of him because the company needs more diversity in its workplace. This causes many problems throughout the various areas of a work place. Another example is through training in the workplace. An example of this would be a man and a woman being trained for the same exact job, yet the woman may get specialized training that is seen as necessary by the trainers, which gives the woman an advantage to be more successful in the workplace. No one should be given an unequal, undeserved advantage. This problem is also evident in promotions and terminations. Along with using diversity to help hire certain people, the same guidelines are

In workplaces, institutional racism is a common factor for minority groups. In a 2012 study of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, conducted on people with French-Canadian surnames and people with surnames of other origines, found that 60% of the French-Canadian had better changes of getting called back for an interview than the candidates that had a foreign sounding last name. In fact, if a person of visible minority gets a job offer, it is most likely a lower payed job with fewer chances of becoming a higher ranked employee in the company (Canadian Race Relations Foundation). These results prouve that society still has a stigma against visible minority which plays a key role in employment. When it comes time to apply for a job, only haft of visual minority students out of University get a high-skill job. This is not because they aren’t as successful in their field as white people, but rather because employers tend to overlook credentials and look at skin colour first (Canadian Race Relations Fondation). Lets not forget to mention that systemic racism is more subtile than other forms of racism so when it comes time to prove it, it’s a difficult and almost impossible task (Hicks). Under those circumstances, it is generally a high ranked White employee in the company that is discriminating against a co-worker or futur employee.

Employment discrimination manifests in a variety of forms. The most common scenario is when the employer unfairly treats job applicants and employees because of their gender, race, age, disability, nationality or familial status. Often, employment discrimination that emanates from familial status occurs because of events such as pregnancy. The employers usually take adverse and cruel actions against these employees or rather potential employees. Contextually, adverse action entails actions such as dismissing an employee, detrimental alteration of an employee’s position, refusal to employ some potential employees or injuring an employee.

This study was particular interesting because it presented research as to how employers are using prejudice attitudes when extending interviews. This study aids to our research because it shows how hiring managers are denying cultural sounding names even before an interview. Despite their qualified experience, skills or education, they are overlooked therefore more attention is giving toward other applicants which could result in Caucasians being offered the

According to Vega (2015), “69% of blacks and 57% of Hispanics say past and present discrimination is a major reason for the problems facing people of their racial or ethnic group”. And among these people, 26% of blacks and 15% of Hispanics felt that they had been treated unfavorably due to their race at their workplace.

Discrimination of minorities occurs very often at work. Minorities are discriminated because of their skin colour, customs, values and their difference to the majority. The discrimination goes unnoticed sometimes and also unreported. An employee’s time at work can be very stressful because of racial comments. The harassment can have a big toll on a person’s mental health. Being denied a job based on the ethnic group you're from is completely wrong and against the law. This form of discrimination often occurs where you are denied based on your ethnicity. The law does cover racial harassment but these occurrences don’t always get reported. There are two cases in which a man is harassed at work because of his race and another case where a woman is denied a job because of her religion. Both of these cases show that discrimination of minorities does occur in the workplace and can have a huge impact on one’s life.

​Racial and color harassment and discrimination has been an ongoing issue in the United States for decades. Racial and color discrimination is when an applicant or employee is hired, fired, paid, assigned jobs or promoted based on their race or color. This also includes the terms of employment based on the race and color of the spouse of an applicant or employee (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). An example of racial discrimination would be if two individuals, one African American and one white with the same work and educational background were being paid