Title VII Dissimilar Effect

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.

The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.

Companies that discriminate on basis of a host of job-irrelevant issues, comprising race, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age and ethnicity put themselves at a competitive disadvantage as opposed to companies that appraise employees solely on their credentials and qualifications to work well. Given the high rates of discrimination encountering the workforce today, discrimination based on racial discrimination and sexual orientation represents an actual hazard to the profitability of companies (Oeo.tufts.edu, 2015). This essay discusses the non-discrimination policy of the Home depot company.

Title VII applies to state and local governments with 15 or more employees and also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations including our federal government. Based on Title VII employment opportunities cannot be denied to any person based upon their race or perceived race or because of their marriage or association with a person or persons of a particular color or race. Title VII also prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions pertaining to the abilities, traits, or the performance of persons from certain racial groups. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate when recruiting, hiring, and promoting, transferring, also work assignments, performance measurements, the work environment, job training, discipline and discharge this also includes wages and benefits, and anything else including condition and the privilege of employment. Title VII not only prohibits intentional discrimination, it also covers neutral job policies that disproportionately affect any person of a certain race, color, nationality that are not related to the job and the needs of the

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.

Many of us have worked in job environment that were less than ideal and probably thought about quitting our jobs on a daily basis. Do you ever wonder what it was like before the laws were written and implemented that prevented your boss from discriminating against you and other coworkers? Well I can without a doubt say that I would not have want a job before the 1964 Congress enacted the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

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,

Minorities face twice as much racial profiling than white Americans. “The federal office of personnel management report that when education, performance rating and other factors are held the constant African americans are twice as likely as whites to be dismissed from government jobs” (Mullings 17). When it comes to companies dismissing

Discrimination is also evident in employment. In the year 2000, students from the universities of Chicago and Washington teamed up to conduct a survey. They paired up a black man with a white man who were identical in almost every way, i.e.

One of the most egregious examples of the tension between federal employment discrimination law and psychological science is the federal common law doctrine known as the same-actor inference. When originally elaborated by the Fourth Circuit in Proud v. Stone, the same-actor doctrine applied only when an “employee was hired and fired by the same person within a relatively short time span.” In the two decades since, the doctrine has widened and broadened in scope. It now subsumes many employment contexts well beyond hiring and firing, to scenarios in which the “same person” entails different groups of decision makers, and the “short time span” has been elastically extended over seven years. Per the same-actor doctrine, when a supervisor first

Federal (Title VII) and State legislation prohibit intentional discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and prohibit both “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” discrimination.

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the single most important piece of legislation that has helped to shape and define employment law rights in this country (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001)". Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, gender, disability, religion and national origin. However, it was racial discrimination that was the moving force of the law that created a whirlwind of a variety of discriminations to be amended into Title VII. Title VII was a striving section of legislation, an effort which had never been tried which made the passage of the law an extremely uneasy task. This paper will discuss the evolution of Title VII as well as the impact Title VII has had in the workforce.

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.

Bent, J.R., (2011). The telltale sign of discrimination: probabilities, information asymmetries, and the systematic disparate treatment theory, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2011, Volume 44, Issue 4, p. 797

There are two major cultural divisions, Hispanic and Caucasian, to further complicate the work environment the ratio of Male to female workers is 20 to 1. No effort from either group of being sensitive to the others existence is apparent. (DuBrin, 2004, p. 67). Management’s main concern is for “ethnic diversity” to the point of not having issues with the equal employment opportunity act.