The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, What It Stands for in America - Term Paper Example

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, what it stands for in America and number - submitted Introduction: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for implementing federal laws that make it illegitimate to differentiate against a job claimant or an employee owing to the individuals race, color, national origin, sex (incorporating pregnancy), age (forty or more than that), religious conviction, or disability. It is also against the law to discriminate against an individual since the person complained about unfairness, filed a charge of unfairness, or took part in an employment bias inquiry or court case. The majority of employers with a minimum of 15 employees are covered by EEOC regulations. A good number of labor unions and employment organizations are also covered. The laws relate to all kinds of work circumstances, including employing, firing, promotions, pestering, guidance, wages, and advantages (Overview, n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been able to set their laws and action schedules such that a discrimination free work society may be created in America. The role of EEOC: The EEOC has the power to investigate charges of bias against owners who are covered by the law. Their role in an inquiry is to fairly and flawlessly assess the accusations in the discussion and then make a judgment. If they find that bias has taken place, they will try to resolve the charge. If they are not successful, they have the power to file a proceeding to defend the rights of people and the interests of the public. They do not, however, file proceedings in all cases where they find bias. They also work to avoid discrimination prior to its occurrence through learning and technical aid programs. The EEOC offers leadership and counseling to federal organizations in all fields of the federal governments equal employment opportunity program. EEOC guarantees federal agency and department approving with EEOC rules, offers technical aid to federal organizations concerning EEO complaint verdict, monitors and assesses federal organizations affirmative employment programs, develops and allocates federal sector educational substances and administers training for stakeholders. It also offers guidance and help to their Administrative Judges who administer hearings on EEO complaints, and judges appeals from executive decisions made by federal organizations on EEO complaints (Overview, n.d.). Laws Enforced by EEOC: There are several laws which are enforced by EEOC. They are listed below: 1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) - This law makes it illegitimate to differentiate against somebody on the basis of race, color, religious conviction, national origin, or gender. The law also declares it illegitimate to seek revenge against a person because the individual complained about differentiation, filed a charge of differentiation, or took part in an employment differentiation investigation or proceeding. The law requires that owners reasonably make room for applicants and workers genuinely held religious practices. If this is not done, then it would impose an strict measures on the operation of the owners business. 2. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act - This law modified Title VII to make it illegitimate to discriminate against a lady owing to pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical status associated with pregnancy or childbirth. The law also makes it illegitimate to seek revenge against an individual because the individual complained about biasness, filed a charge of biasness, or participated in an employment biasness investigation or proceeding. 3. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) - This law heralds it illicit to pay varied wages to men and women if they execute equal work in the identical place of work. The law also makes it illicit to avenge a person as the person complained about biasness, filed a charge of biasness, or participated in an employment biasness investigation or proceedings. 4. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) - This law defends individuals who are forty or above from discrimination due to age. The law also calls it illegal to revenge against a person because the individual complained about unfairness, filed a charge of unfairness, or participated in an employment unfairness investigation or prosecution. The law also necessitates that owners sensibly accommodate the known physical or mental drawbacks of an otherwise skilled individual with a disability who is a candidate or employee. If this law is violated, then it would impose a severe hardship on the function of the owners business. 5. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) - This law makes it illegitimate to distinguish against a qualified individual with a disability in the private sector and in state and local administrations. The law also makes it illicit to retaliate against an individual because the individual complained about unfairness, filed a charge of unfairness, or participated in an employment unfairness investigation or proceedings. 6. Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – It is illegal to differentiate against a qualified individual with a disability in the federal administration. The law also makes it illicit to revenge against an individual because the individual complained about unfairness, filed a charge of unfairness, or participated in an employment unfairness investigation or prosecution. The law also requires that owners reasonably adjust the known physical or mental flaws of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee. If this law is not obeyed, then it would adversely affect the business functions of the employers. 7. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) – This Act had taken effect on November 21, 2009. This law makes it illegal to discriminate against workers or applicants owing to genetic information. Genetic information incorporates information about a persons genetic tests and the genetic tests of a persons family members, in addition to information about any illness, disorder or condition of a persons family members (that is, a persons family medical history) pertaining to genetic issues. The law also makes it illicit to retaliate against an individual since the individual complained about differentiation, filed a charge of unfairness, or participated in an employment differentiation investigation or lawsuit (Laws Enforced by EEOC. n.d.). Initiatives undertaken by EEOC: There are three major initiatives taken by EEOC which are E-RACE, LEAD and Youth@Work. These are explained in details hereunder. The E-RACE Initiative is patterned to enhance EEOCs attempts to ensure places of work are free of race and color differentiation. Purposely, the EEOC will find out issues, criteria and limitations that add to race and color discrimination. It will explore policies to develop the administrative processing and the lawsuit of race and color differentiation claims, and improve public consciousness of race and color differentiation in employment. The Commission will integrate the aims of E-RACE with present EEOC initiatives. Ultimately, the Commission will intensify partnerships with personnel advocates and state and local human rights commissions and augment its outreach to human resource experts and owner groups to address race and color differentiation in the places of work (The E Race Initiative, n.d.). LEAD (Leadership for the Employment of Americans with Disabilities) is the EEOCs action to address the lessening number of personnel with targeted disabilities in the federal workforce. The aim of this initiative is to crucially augment the population of people with rigorous disabilities employed by the federal government. This national outreach and education campaign delves to reverse the drift of reducing participation in federal employment, augment the awareness of hiring officers about the lessening numbers of individuals with disabilities in federal employment. It also intends to teach federal hiring officers about how to employ special hiring experts to bring individuals with disabilities on board, especially those with severe disabilities. It also aims to train applicants with severe disabilities about how to apply employing the special hiring officials available; and provide information and resources on recruitment, hiring, and offering sensible accommodations (The LEAD Initiative, n.d.). The Youth@Work initiative is a national teaching and outreach campaign to endorse equal employment opportunity for U.S.’s next generation of employees. On September 21, 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declared its Youth@Work Initiative to encourage equal employment opportunity for America’s next generation of employees. This state-of-art national outreach as well as education campaign is framed to educate young employees about their workplace rights and responsibilities. EEOCs Youth@Work Initiative has 3 major components: Youth@Work web site, Free outreach events and Partnerships with business leaders, human resource groups, and industry trade associations. The website http://youth.eeoc.gov is dedicated to teaching young employees about their rights to equal employment opportunity and accountabilities. The website illustrates different kinds of job differentiation that young employees may encounter and advocates approaches they can use to avoid, and, if necessary, react to such differentiation. EEOC Commissioners and field office staffs will host free outreach schedules for high school students, youth assemblies, and small ventures who hire young employees. These events incorporate information about the laws applied by EEOC, and the rights and accountabilities of owners and workers. These are aimed at helping young personnel as they enter and guide the professional world and boosting owners to proactively address biasness issues challenging young employees. EEOC plans on hosting a chain of forums and roundtable conferences with business leaders, human resource assemblies, industry trade organizations, and others to further explore the places of work trends and confrontations affecting young employees. In the following section we are going to observe a case study relating to the discrimination rights (Youth@Work, n.d.). A case study related to EEOC: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said on August 20, 2009 that it had filed an age bias lawsuit against AT&T (America’s largest telecommunications supplier). The commission asserted AT&T had distinguished against older workers by refusing them the opportunity to be rehired solely as they left the company under early retirement plans. This had led to an asymmetric number of older employees not having the same chance to apply for re-employment with the corporation as younger employees, which amounts to age differentiation. The proceeding, filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, declares that AT&T’s strategy excluded a class of employees from being re-employed due to their age, irrespective of their qualifications. According to Michael Coe (spokesperson of AT&T), AT&T had made assortment and inclusion to be a top priority. The company has also received national acknowledgement for its programs and performance. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission elucidated that the strategy had been in effect at AT&T since at least 2006. According to Louis Graziano (a commission spokesperson), the early retirement programs influenced over 50,000 individuals. He said the number of discriminated people was not known. However, these discriminated individuals are those who had sought to be re-employed by AT&T (U.S. Files Age Bias Suit against AT&T, 2009). Analytical discussion: If we consider the above case from an analytical point of view, we will observe that it is illegal for owners to distinguish based on age. However, age bias is extensively approved to be a key aspect in job loss and hiring practices. This is something that would be certainly painful to even a casual reader of newspapers. In 2008, layoff-associated age discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were at a record high. It was more than 29 percent in comparison to 2007. Differentiation in employment is much harder to prove - in reality, it is nearly not possible. However older employees do not doubt that it exists. Survey respondents spoke of being dragged out of candidate pools. A good number of people reported "getting the green light" at the time of a telephonic interview. Then they observed the interviewers face fall when the candidate came for an in-person meeting. As quoted by a job seeker, "No one called until I took the dates off my resume. Then, their eyes grew wide when I met with them, making their surprise hard to miss” (Miller, 2009). According to the report by Terry Nagel (a Civic Ventures spokesperson), the candidates were rejected on the grounds of being “overqualified” or “too experienced”. Some individuals were asked questions about their vigor and plans for retirement. Respondents accounted that one general practice is inquiring applicants the graduation date of high school. Another way of attempting to draw out a candidates age was asking if the candidate knew an individual at their college who attended during a specific time period (Miller, 2009). Discussion on ethical consideration: Employment differentiation legislation has evolved to incorporate race, disabilities, sexual abuse of either sex, or age. Alternatively, this evolution and a rising trend toward equality for all people in the workplace, the time has come for the defensive reach of employment differentiation law to cover ugliness. Legally, employment differentiation law is framed to accomplish goals that defend both the employee and the owner. It protects the worker from unfair discrimination and it protects the owner by diminishing the risk of proceeding based on unfairness (Ortutay, 2009). Most people remain quite feasible, self-sufficient, and fruitful in today’s society, at age sisty-four and beyond. In contrast to widespread faiths about aging in Western community, most old individuals do not live segregated, functionally impaired lives characterized by cognitive or personality declines, or by failing intellectual capabilities. Researchers have recommended that those who work most closely with older individuals may be at risk for holding pessimistic attitudes toward older individuals, owing to their enhanced exposure to those who are ill and weak. In this study, age bias is used correspondingly with discrimination, as a particular form of damaging thinking aimed at older people. The root of the term "discrimination" stems from the idea "pre-judgment". Todays usage of the word “discrimination” is likely to signify a pessimistic prejudice or bias, stemming from the roots of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. However, negativity was not built-in in the actual meaning. Prejudice, from the original point of view, is a common and logical consequence of normative cognitive processes (Roberts, 2002, p. 1). Thus, it can be inferred that from an ethical viewpoint, the discriminations should not be made against any individuals. Recommendations and Conclusion: The association has till date taken adequate measures to ensure a discrimination free workplace. However care must be taken such that the judgment of the organization remains unbiased and bold. It must take care regarding sending the right signals through delivery of justice regarding workplace issues. One to one interaction is required to know the personal complains of the employees regarding their managers since they might otherwise fear to approach the organization. Sometimes confidentiality of identity needs to be maintained in order to allow the employee to come forward on his own regarding his problems. We know that under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, in SEC. 623 [Sec. 4], it has been mentioned that it shall be illegal for an owner to fail or refuse to employ or to release any person. The employer is not supposed to discriminate against any person with respect to his reimbursement, terms, conditions, or benefits of employment, due to such individual’s age. The company owner cannot restrict, divide or categorize his workers in any way which would prevent person from his or her rights to employment opportunities. He is also not allowed to adversely influence his status as personnel, because of such individual’s age. The wage rate also is not permitted to be deduced because of his age (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, n.d.). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been influential in the development of employment unfairness law. According to the EEOC guidelines, employment unfairness law should be designed to accomplish the following objectives in descending order of importance : eradicating employment unfairness and arbitrariness from the place of work, restricting employment decisions to not adjustable criteria that are required for job qualification, facilitating occupational goal achievement, developing employment decision-making, designing ergonomically and psychosocially optimal work surroundings, improving occupational mobility, reducing social costs of litigation, providing resolution of employment-associated disputes and abolishing employee retaliation (Ortutay, 2009). However, often we find there has been violation of law. On a positive note, we can say, that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been able to achieve in providing equal rights and benefits to the employees to a great extent. References: 1. “Age Discrimination”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 10, 2009). 2. “EEOC Initiatives”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/index.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 13, 2009). 3. “Laws Enforced by EEOC”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 13, 2009). 4. Miller, M. (Aug. 31, 2009). “Proving Workplace Age Bias Isn’t Easy But the Case is Strong”. HuffingtonPost. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-miller/proving-workplace-age-bia_b_272187.html (Accessed on Nov. 10, 2009). 5. Ortutay, B. (August 20, 2009). “U.S. Lawsuit Accuses AT & T of Age Bias”. HuffingtonPost. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/us-lawsuit-accuses-att-of_n_265518.html (Accessed on Nov. 10, 2009). 6. “Overview”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 10, 2009). 7. Roberts, J. (Dec. 4, 2002). “Ethics Adherence as a Predictor of Age Bias in Social Work Practice with the older adults”. Available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12102002153448/unrestricted/jrobertsfinally.pdf. (Accessed on Nov. 10, 2009). 8. “The E Race Initiative”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/e-race/index.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 13, 2009). 9. “The LEAD Initiative”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/lead/index.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 13, 2009). 10. “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 13, 2009). 11. “U.S. Files Age Bias Suit Against AT&T”. (August 20, 2009). The New York Times. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/technology/companies/21phone.html?_r=1 (Accessed on Nov. 10, 2009). 12. “Youth @ Work”. (n.d.). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Available at: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/youth/index.cfm (Accessed on Nov. 13, 2009). Read More