The Rights Opportunity Commission ( Eeoc )

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.

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).

The purpose of this paper is to go over a lawsuit that was filled by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The paper will cover who the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is and their role in the lawsuit. It will go over whether or not the lawsuit promotes social change. The paper will also go over how the EEOC as well as other news groups released information about the case to the public. I will then give my take on how I would implement new strategies to make sure the problem does not come up in the workplace again.

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.

Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the only substantive protection from discrimination for United States citizens was the 14th Amendment, which states, “equal protection of the laws.” Seminal cases under this law include, Brown v. Board of Education, and more recently, Bush v. Gore (Cornell University Law School, 2016). Despite the 14th Amendment, discrimination based on race, sex, and age went uncontested as it was often difficult to prove and no specific protections existed. Hence, as part of the Civil Rights Act, the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) allowed federal law to establish protected classes (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2016). As a person who falls under the protected class of age, this paper focuses on age discrimination and the potential ethical issues for employers involving this protected class. While most employers respect and follow employment laws, age discrimination is more common than many realize and can be devastating for the individual and financially problematic for the employer.

EEOC’s role in this case was to file lawsuit against the employer (Exel) on behalf of the

Through the years, America has made an overall improvement in eliminating discrimination, inequality and slavery and focusing more on inclusion, equal rights, and equal opportunity. Despite a considerable improvement, there are corporations and individuals that often revert to archaic means of treating employees, creating hostile environments. Consequently, different advocacy groups and laws still remain in effect and continue to evolve to protect the citizens and non-citizens of the USA.

Research by Anna Lazarus and Juan Enjamio (2015) presented the background of David Baldwin, a Supervisory Air Traffic Control Specialist for the United States Department of Transportation in Miami, Florida. He filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint within the established timeline with the Federal Aviation Administration after he was not selected for a permanent position due to his sexual orientation. It was alleged by Baldwin that the supervisor involved in the selection process, made negative comments about his sexual orientation. The Agency took the position that the complaint was untimely and that the sexual orientation portion of the claim was appealable to the Agency, while the portion of the complaint involving reprisal was appealable to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (Lazarus and Juan 2015)

We sometimes forget how far we have come in our struggle with discrimination and equal opportunity for all. While we still have many improvements to make in this area The Civil Rights Act has helped us make significant progress over the years. Probably the most well-known act in the Civil Rights Movement is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but prior to this act there were two federal laws and a voting rights bill passed. These 3 acts are known as the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1875 and 1957. After the passing of the 1964 act came the Civil Rights act of 1991 which amended the 1964 act. All of these acts were put in place to try and decrease the amount of racial discrimination in our country. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1875, 1957, 1964, and 1991

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.

The American population is aging as health care improves, the older generation is living longer and are still working or just getting into the workplace. One of the biggest issues that these older individuals face is age discrimination within the workplace. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of age. Through a detailed explanation and history of the law, this paper will examine how ADEA affects the professionals in the workplace, human resources, managers, and employers in the workplace. It will further examine how the employee is affected by ADEA. This includes what their rights are and how they can make a complaint. Lastly, a legal case will be examined and evaluated so

Discrimination is nothing new to our society or is it something that should be taken lightly and for many decades our Nation has endured many conflicts that have tested the will of Americans over the decades and it is evident that as we have become more diverse so too has our workforce. Although, we are in the twenty first century the goal is to understand why prejudice and discrimination is still so prevalent and how we can do better while trying to bring together our different backgrounds, skills, and experiences still has proven to be an issue that minorities are constantly fighting as they struggle to find there place in society. Through an array of well-educated researchers showing how diversity is nothing new to our society, but if we are to continue to grow and move forward we must be able to understand that with diversification we can foster a strong and inclusive economy that is built to last and nurture a nation that will continue to lead the world as standard setter.

The EEOC laws, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are federal laws that enforce employers to not discriminate against applicants of any background. Discrimination by types such as age, disability, equal pay/compensation, genetic information, harassment, national origin, pregnancy, race/color, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment are all protected under the EEOC laws. It is also illegal for an employer to “discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.” (EEOC , n.d.) The EEOC laws are to help serve justice and to create an equal work environment for people of any kind. The EEOC wants to accomplish the goal of having every applicant to feel at home without being discriminated against. These laws not only affect an employer hiring an applicant however; it affects them in firing, promoting, harassing, training, wages, and benefits. The EEOC’s role is to help find out if any applicant is being discriminated against and to help

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