Paku is an American of Indonesian ancestry. Paku saw an ad in the local newspaper at Quality Movers as a mover. Quality Movers is a family business run by Frank, his son Randy and their wives who staff the office. To work for Quality Movers, a person must have moving experience and a combination of experience and education, and a type D driver’s license is required. Paku decided to apply; he felt that he was well suited for the position because he had the qualifications listed above. With his background in martial arts, Paku considered himself to be strong and a qualified candidate for Quality Movers. However, when Paku applies for the job at Quality; the company informed him that he is too short, all employees who work there must be at least 5’7” and he is 5’4.” Recently, Quality Movers employ six other movers; however, Paku noticed the movers are the same ethnic background, no diversity or inclusion. Paku would have to decide whether he wants …show more content…
Quality Movers cannot conclude if Paku height and ethnic background would hinder him from performing the job. Quality Movers showed a disparate impact against Paku. In the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. demonstrated disparate impact. “In Griggs, the employer required a high school diploma and a passing score on two professional developed test” (Disparate Impact, 2016). “Although the company had failed to prove that his employer had a discriminatory motive, the Supreme Court reversed the decision” (Disparate Impact, 2016). “The employer’s workforce did not reflect the racial, ethnic, or gender percentage of the population the area does not prove disparate impact” (Disparate Impact, 2016). To prove a claim of disparate impact, “the employee must show that an employment practice does not select members of a protected class in a proportion smaller than their percentage in the pool of actual applicants” (Disparate Impact,
In the Ricci v. DeStefano case, Ricci a white male filed a disparate impact lawsuit under the Title VII. Ricci past the test that was given to be promoted within the fire department. Ricci was one of many (white) candidates to passed the test. The testing service hired to administer the test discarded all test because many minorities did not pass. Dothard case would fall under the disparate impact provision because unless the weight testing requirements are revised to be fair to all regardless of gender, more men will continue to outperform women.
The Title VII’s disparate-impact provision inhibits employment practices that have the unintentional effect of race discrimination (Walsh, 2016, p.114). Even though Congress enacted Title VII for the main purpose of confronting racial discrimination in the workplace, courts have continued to struggle to appropriately address the prevalence of subtle racial discrimination that burdens minority applicants/employees today (Ritenhouse, 2013). Another legal issue included in this case is North Hudson refusing to implement non-discriminatory hiring procedures that do not disproportionately exclude African-Americans from employment without evidence of business need. The employer also refused to correct the effects of previous discriminatory practices. As an end result of this case, the District Court held that the employer’s business-necessity justification was insufficient and that there were alternative means to achieve the goals stated that were less
The case of Jordan v. City of New London and Harrigan (1999) centers around Jordan bringing a civil rights action against the city and Harrington alleging that they denied him equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 4, Section 20, of the Connecticut Constitution (Jordan v. City of New London, 2000). The facts as presented to the court are that Jordan and 500 other police applicants voluntarily took the applicant screening examination for being a police officer in the state Connecticut in early 1996. The testing material included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (WPT), which purports to measure cognitive ability. An accompanying manual listed recommended scores for various professions and
The company claimed that the requirements were necessary to meet the qualifications of the position sought after, but it was later proven that those positions did not require those requirements. Mr. Griggs legal defense team claimed that “In-deed, the white employees hired before the requirements were imposed performed entirely satisfac-torily.” ( NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 2016). Duke Power Company selection criteria was obviously flawed and wasn’t in accordance with the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. Their selection criteria limited people of a certain race and created a division among social classes.
Discrimination or Not As employer make decisions which affect employees’ positions, lives, and overall well-being, it is important that those decisions are made in a fair and equitable manner. Through avenues such as culture fit, position qualifications, and performance, management has a consistent and reasonable basis for adjustments, promotions, and terminations. However, when organizations make such judgements without this strong basis, they open themselves up for potential discrimination claims, litigation, and monetary judgements. One such controversial case is St. Mary’s Honor Center versus Hicks.
Charles Mitchell (2013) went on to say, “by not promoting the more successful White employees, was this an act of illegal disparate treatment under Title VII (p. 43)? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal disparate treatment. Assisting the U.S. Supreme Court in their ruling is the established Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures (UGESP). The guidelines state, when an employer determines that adverse impact was evident in its testing process, they shall (1) valid the procedures (test), (2) confirm the linkage to its job, (3) consider alternative testing procedures (Mitchell, p. 45).
The company chooses to hire the white applicant immediately because based on stereotypes, he is more intelligent than the black applicant, even though they have absolutely no other evidence to support this
“A series of legislative initiatives and decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States defined the possibilities of affirmative action policy” (Finkelman, 2004). Affirmative action is such a controversial topic which has been brought up in many Supreme Court cases. In Griggs v. Duke Power case in 1971, the court argued “Title VII” bans “not only overt discrimination but also practices which are fair in form but discriminatory in operation.” (Finkelman, 2004). To eliminate discrimination processes under Title VII, all employers began to hire and recruit more minorities.
On the other hand, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act attempts to remedy the “structural imbalance of the court system” by regulating private employers (Han, Week 3 Lecture, 1/23/17). Title VII uses statutory laws to regulate private employers from discriminating against characteristics like race and sex in the workplace by threatening the profits of these private entities (Han, Week 3 Lecture, 1/23/17). Unfortunately, these Title VII claims face their own barriers in court, making it difficult to use subtle discrimination to prove inequality. The limitations of these approaches are evidenced in cases like Washington v. Davis Sup. Ct. (1976), Griggs v Duke Power Co Sup.
130). The notion of unlawful employment practices encircles those activities which cause an adverse effect on members of a protected class. Certain practices, widely known as ‘disparate treatment’, imply treatment of some employees or candidates in a different way, such as requiring women to pass a driving test prior to applying for a job, but nor requiring men to pass the test when they apply for the same job. It is extremely important to note that practices which make a disparate impact on members of protected classes may be viewed as fair in the eyes of employers, but entail detrimental influence on members of protected classes.
Unit 7 1.2 Describe ways in which discrimination may deliberately or inadvertently occur in the work setting- Discrimination could occur in a workplace at any time and could be to do with someone’s race, gender, age, disability or sexuality. This could mean that a police or procedure is set in place and is meant to equally refer to all staff working in the setting. This means that if a police or procedure is made clearly to everyone and is equal and not everybody is able to deal with a procedure then this means that they have ben discriminated. Be able to work in an inclusive way 2.1 Identify which legislation and codes of practice relating to equality, diversity and discrimination apply to own role- When working in a childcare setting, all legislation and codes will apply to everyone, this is to make sure that staff understand the Importance of dealing with each situation.
Dunlap had twenty years of experience as a boiler maker; he also had an outstanding record as an employee. Dunlap tried to gain employment with TVA he was more than qualified and did not have anything to negatively affect his chances of employment (Walsh, 2010.) The TVA had 10 positions to fill. Mr. Dunlap
A study indicates that dark-skinned African Americans face a distinct disadvantage when applying for jobs. Matthew Harrison, a doctoral student at UGA undertook the first significant study of "colorism" in the workplace. He found that a light-skinned black male can have only a bachelor's degree and typical work experience and still be preferred over a dark-skinned black male with an M.B.A. and past managerial positions, simply because expectations of the light-skinned black male are much higher, and he doesn't appear as “menacing' as the darker-skinned male applicant.” This finding is possibly due to the common belief that fair-skinned blacks probably have more similarities with whites than do dark-skinned blacks, which in turn makes whites feel more comfortable around them. (Harrison
For individual discrimination, it is mainly that through our personal experiences and lessons learned and received in the past, to prejudiced another person. At the same time, institutional discrimination usually produce prejudice to the most of large institutions and organizations for part of the race and ethnic. In current society, individual discrimination is often released in the color issue today; we often are isolated by our own color. Sometimes, people who the white drive in the cars are easier to get forgiveness and understanding of police officers, but for other color race, these people usually tend to be suspects by other people. On the other hand, institutional discrimination is mainly manifested in several areas: economy, education,