The Work Of A Human Resource Agent Complex

In “We’d Love to Hire Them, But…”: The Meaning of Race for Employers” authors Joleen Kirschenman and Kathryn M. Neckerman explore the meaning of race and ethnicity to employers, the way race and ethnicity impact other characteristics in the eyes of employers and when race matters most. 185 face-to-face interviews with employers in Chicago and Cook County formed the basis of their research. Open and close ended questions regarding the employers’ hiring and recruitment practices and Chicago’s labor force and business climate constituted the interviews. Under consideration during the interviews was the hiring criteria for the employer’s “most typical entry level position”. Answers to open-ended questions were coded, categorized, counted and

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).

During the last part of this century, businesses and organizations have heavily relied on affirmative actions laws to ensure equal employment opportunities. The failure of this dependence upon legislation is that is doesn't address the full spectrum of diversity in the workplace (6). Affirmative actions laws have limitations, discriminating against people holding protected-class status such as women, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans,

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.

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

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.

Despite the laws and protections that have been established, workplace discrimination is still reported as a common occurrence in the U.S (Triana, Jayasinghe, & Pieper, 2015). The subsequent sections will examine a case of workplace discrimination as described by Monica Harwell, an African-American woman working for Con Edison, in New York. A consequent discussion of Monica’s account of discrimination evaluates the case in terms of

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.

Discrimination in the workforce is not only illegal, but it has been the center of controversy for multiple cases throughout its existence. The purpose of this writing is to reflect on particular personal circumstances based around actual events. First will be a clearly defined section of the Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed by a brief description of personal experiences involving discrimination, and concluding with a reflection as to how the American workforce is protected by law. The writing will cover any ethically related issues, personal thoughts and ideas, and illustrations of how the law pertains directly to personal events, as well as provide direct links to any and all reference material covered under the purpose of this writing.

In a perfect world, people would be equal in rights, opportunities, and responsibilities, despite their race or gender. In the world we live in, however, we always face all kinds of neglect based on different attributes. All over the United States, certain people treat others with prejudice because of particular features they possess. Unfortunately, prejudice and discrimination occur even in places which, by definition, should be free of all personal prejudices – specifically, in offices and other business surroundings. This tragedy is called workplace discrimination; not every unfair behavior at work, however, can be assessed as discrimination. Discrimination in the workplace happens when an employee experiences unfair treatment due to their race, gender, age, religion, marital status, national origin, disability or veteran status, or other characteristics. Discrimination is one of the largest issues people face in the workplace and it must be dealt with. The U.S. have laws and regulations on discrimination but it still often occurs. Workplace discrimination appears in hiring, training, promotion, firing, and other institutional or interpersonal treatment. Discrimination sometimes causes an employee to leave or quit the workplace, resign from a position, or in more severe cases, to commit suicide or act violently against the discriminators. Discrimination is one of the largest issues many people face in the workplace.

This paper will address the homework assignment in week two. As noted in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) tutorial, candidates for the Director of Human Resources (HR) position of the newly merged company, ZAB, are being asked to prepare a presentation about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it pertains specifically to disparate impact and disparate treatment policies that should be implemented to avoid liability for potential Title VII violations. This paper provides the result of my research to prepare for this presentation; answers to the required four questions are below.

Studies that have been conducted to examine the level of access and employment inequity experienced by minority groups show that with equivocal levels of education and work experience, job applicants who have an English sounding name are requested for an interview up to forty percent more than their competing job applicants who have a Indian, Pakistani, or Chinese sounding name (TIEDI, 2011). Furthermore, the dismissal of the African-Canadian woman discussed earlier is not as surprising when one takes into account that in Toronto, arguably Canada’s most multicultural city; those of African-American descent reported one of the highest amounts of discrimination in relation to those of other visible minorities (TIEDI, 2011). The deduction that can be made then is that there still persists to be a belief that there is a correlation between one’s racial background and their perceived ability to do a job as effectively as that of their Caucasian or other dominant racial counterparts. Such a belief greatly hinders Canada’s workplace as it fails to utilize the skill-sets, knowledge, and qualifications of visible minority individuals that would otherwise benefit the community, and it largely damages one’s ability to integrate into Canadian society as a functioning member treated with equal regard,

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

The topic of minorities in the workforce and how the struggle to accomplish equal treatment in today’s workforce is nothing new to our society. For centuries we have been concerned that by bringing together our different backgrounds, skills, and experiences, as well as the many businesses of this great

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