Racial Discrimination - Research Paper Example

Racial Discrimination Introduction Racial evolvement over the last few decades has indicated some scholars, academicians and policy makers to assert that the issues of discrimination have been solved. However, the discussions about discrimination have been concealed by a lack of dependable evidence. This research paper studies low and medium wage racial employment discriminiation and corresponding prohibited practices and coverage of the law (Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964). The observed inequality in wages between colored and white men inefficiently reflects the relative economic standing of African-Americans and other non-white races, which experience discrimination and a higher rate of joblessness. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., is the principal federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin[USE11]. The enforcement of laws under Title VII is done by The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and does not protect age discrimination or disability discrimination that are dealt by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Employers under jurisdiction of Title VII include private sector companies whose commercial operations affect “interstate commerce” and who employ 15 or more employees, Federal, state, and local government employers, Unions, Employment agencies (making hiring referrals). The law permits discrimination on religion, sex, and national origin if there is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) rationally essential for standard business operations. Organizations that are exempted from Title VII prohibitions and protections are religious organizations, scholastic institutions, or societies, employing persons of a particular religion; bona fide, tax-exempt private clubs; contracts that contain a Bona fide occupational qualifications necessary to perform the job; and aliens employed outside the United States. It is important to note that Title VII does not prohibit all discrimination. Employers are open to study factors such as experience; job knowledge, personality characteristics, provided those factors are interconnected to the job in question. Title VII remedies include reinstatement, back pay, damages and attorney's fees[Fel11]. Backpay and similar retrospective support, presented to recipients of employer discrimination, is proposed to reimburse individuals for monetary losses straightforwardly traceable to discriminatory practices. Front pay is remuneration granted for lost compensation (opportunity cost) during the period between judgment and reinstatement. Similar to back pay, front pay fundamentally is the counterpart of lost incomes. A principal petitioner can recover attorney fees under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Furthermore, main parties recover "costs" which include filing fees, transcripts, and other entries. Punitive damages exist in cases result from under Title VII (discrimination because of race, sex, national origin, and religion) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but not the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These damages are created to reprimand past misconducts and discourage future wrongdoings, and the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer acted with "malice" or in irresponsible neglect for federally protected legal rights. Elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination 
 The plaintiff must intially present a prima facie case of discrimination. A prima facie case is that minimum amount of evidence required to claim a legitimate question of discrimination[Air11]. The elements that make up the prima facie case include: A. Not Selected For Promotion a. The Plaintiff meets the essential qualification required for the job; b. The Plaintiff is a member of the protected class; c. There existed a job opening for which the employer organization pursued applicants and the plaintiff applied; d. The Plaintiff was not selected; and e. Employer persisted to seek applicants with comparable qualifications and chose somebody not in the plaintiff’s protected class. B. Disciplinary Actions a. The Plaintiff is a fellow of a protected class; b. The Plaintiff was subjected to a disciplinary action; and c. The employer treated him/her severely than other employees in the same situation and who were not part of the protected class. C. Appraisals a. The Plaintiff is a member of a protected class; b. He/she is equally positioned to employees outside his protected class; and c. The Plaintiff got a lower performance rating or appraisal. D. Harassment Harassment may be based on any of the protected cases under Title VII i.e. race, color, national, origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. E. Failure to Provide a Reasonable Accommodation to a Qualified Disabled Person The plaintiff complainant must provide evidence: 1. That he/she is an "individual with a disability"; 2. That he/she is a "qualified individual with a disability"; and 3. That the employer did not sensibly accommodate his/her disability Theories of discrimination There are three principal categories of discrimination with which the plaintiff may be associated: (1) disparate treatment, (2) disparate impact, and (3) Unsuccessful to make reasonable accommodation in religious discrimination or disability entitlements. Disparate treatment is possibly the most usual type of discrimination, which is, distinctive treatment due to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability. The second kind of discrimination, disparate impact is an employer policy or agenda that may appear, on its surface, to consider everyone equally, but in reality it essentially discriminates. Examples of disparate impact are common intelligence tests or educational necessities that disproportionately eliminate members of specific protected classes and are not job-related. Examples of a reasonable accommodation could be developing a jobsite willingly reachable or restructuring a job for the disabled employee or adjusting work timetables for religious accommodation. The plaintiff may substantiate employer’s discriminatory intent through either direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence is often occasional, for example, if there is a memo penned by the selecting official asserting that he did not select the plaintiff because of his or her race, gender or religion. Indirect evidence is usually incidental in nature i.e. the evidence does not by itself verify a discrimination motive, but however it allows one to infer the existence of happening. For example, management archives show that the hiring officer, even though provided with a number of opportunities to do so, has never hired a woman, a Hindu, or a Hispanic. In most cases, the plaintiff needs to prove discrimination indirectly by inference. The process for filing discrimination claims
 In order to file a discrimination claim under Title VII, the complainant needs to file written charges of discrimination with an EEOC office before taking the case to disctrict court[EEO11]. The EEOC functions as a neutral examiner that does not represent either the plaintiff or the employer. The case has to be filed within a specific period after discrimination happens, the specificity of which depends on the area of jurisdiction. A charge could be filed by any individual who declares him/herself to be the victim of discrimination, by any person or group on behalf of a victim(s) of discrimination, or by any of the EEOC Commissioners. During filing of the application, the plaintiff has to ensure that he attaches as much evidence as possible for his case. Employment Discrimination Cases & their outcomes 1. Arthur L. Lewis, Jr., et al v. City of Chicago, Illinois (2010) In 1995, respondent the City of Chicago gave a written examination to applicants seeking firefighter positions. The criteria for selection for firefighters declared by the city was random selection of applicants from the list that scored at least 89 out of 100 points on the examination, whom it designated as “well qualified.” The Complainants, Arthur L. Lewis, Jr., et al. (“Lewis”), a group of African Americans who had applied to become firefighters in Chicago sued the city under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stating Chicago’s use of an eligibility test had a disparate impact on African Americans, resulting in employment discrimination[SUP09]. The petitioners won their discrimination lawsuit in the federal district court, but the Seventh Circuit reversed on the basis that the claim was not filed within the 300-day filing period, which started once the applicants were informed of test results, for employment discrimination claims. 2. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) The plaintiffs in this case were black employees at respondent's generating plant, who filed a case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, challenging respondent's requirement of a high school diploma or clearing intelligence tests as a requisite of employment in or transfer to jobs at the plant[Fin11]. The petitioners argued that the tests had no relationship with job descriptions and hence had disparate impact on African-American applicants. The Court of Appeals reversed district court’s decision, refusing the holding that residual discrimination arising from prior practices was separated from corrective action, however the court agreed with the lower court that there was no discriminatory practice in the adoption of the diploma and test requirements. 3. Walmart Stores v. Dukes (2011) Current and former Wal-Mart employees filed a lawsuit against their employers for injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay, owing to Wal-Mart's alleged discrimination against women in violation of Title VII[Law11]. The plaintiffs appealed that local managers practice their preference over pay and promotions disproportionately in favor of men; and that Wal-Mart's rejection to cabin its managers' authority results in disparate treatment. The District Court certified female employees’ class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), and Rule 23(b). The Ninth Circuit substantially affirmed. However, on June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart's favor, saying the respondents did not have sufficient in common to constitute a class. 4. Satchell, et al. v. FedEx Express (2007) In 2007, the US district court of San Francisco ordered a $54.9 million settlement of the race discrimination class action lawsuit by African American and Latino employees of FedEx Express against their employer. The employees alleged discriminatory practices followed by the employer in promotion, discipline and performance appraisal activities. Court also asked FedEx to make its performance evaluation process less discretionary, abandoning use of the "Basic Skills Test" as a prerequisite to promotion[Ins07]. 5. EEOC v. U-Haul Co. of Mississippi (2008) EEOC determined a race discrimination lawsuit for $140,000 against a Mississippi U-Haul company[EEO111]. The employer was accused of discriminating on the basis of race when it hired the son of the hiring manager rather than an experienced African American manager, to serve as the company’s marketing company president. Upon complaining about discrimination, the African American employee was fired from the job. Personal Opinion on Title VII law and lawsuits The birth of Title VII of civil rights law happened upon continuous injustice done on the minorities based on race, sex, color, religion or national origin. These cases were particularly impactful in employment scenarios since discriminatory decisions such as hiring, firing, pay, pensions, conditions of employment, and promotions have a huge financial and psychological impact on the employee(s). In my opinion, there is no question to the fact of relevancy of Title VII laws and their enforcement through EEOC. Having said that, there are two major issues that I foresee in the future that affect the rulings of this law. Firstly, since nation and employer organizations are evolving in their behavior towards minorities, the kinds of minorities and the nature of discrimination cases are also changing and new cases surface in terms of discriminatory policies such as homosexuality and trans-gendered employees. After 9/11, there has been an observed increase in religious discrimination against Islamic employees. Hence, it is important to mature our understanding, especially if we are the employer, of discriminatory lawsuits. Secondly, it is hard to find a line between what can be a BFOQ and hard for employees to gather evidence on what is discriminatory and what is not. For example, it is seen that taller, more athletic, and more attractive people earn more in the workplace than shorter, less fit, or less attractive people. As an employee, it is hard to protect these classes with Title VII law. The best way businesses can protect themselves from discrimination claims is to have transparent processes of recruitment and talent management. Publishing all vacancies online, proper diversity practices in the organization and recording of all communication with employees is the most efficient way to protect employer image. Works Cited USE11: , (US EEOC), Fel11: , (Feldman, Fox & Morgado, PA), Air11: , (Air Force Alternative Dispute Resolution Program), EEO11: , (EEOC), SUP09: , (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES), Fin11: , (FindUSlaw), Law11: , (Lawmemo), Ins07: , (Insurance Journal), EEO111: , (EEOC), Read More