Understanding the Nature of Federal Regulation on Employment Discrimination - Case Study Example

Understanding The Nature Of Federal Regulation on Employment Discrimination Melissa Belmont Barry February 22, Understanding The Nature Of Federal Regulation on Employment Discrimination Employment discrimination has been one of the most controversial issues in the United States for several decades. For many years, employers around the country discriminated against workers because of their age, race, religion, sex, disability and sexual orientation (Repa, 2000). Due to the many cases of employment discrimination, the United States Congress enacted federal legislation that is aimed at eradicating discrimination at the workplace. The earliest federal statute that regulated employment discrimination was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, otherwise known as Section 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in the workplace (Repa, 2000). Later on, Congress included Title VII into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 where employers, unions, and employment agencies were prohibited from using race, color, sex, religion, or nation of origin as basis for hiring, firing, or promoting employees (D Emilio, Turner, and Urvashi, 2000). This provision was also instrumental in creating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate cases of discrimination in the workplace (D Emilio, Turner, and Urvashi, 2000). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972) purports different theories of discrimination including the theory of disparate impact and disparate treatment (Civil Rights Act 1964). According this law, disparate impact discrimination happens when the employer, despite the fact that the company does not have any policies discriminating workers, refuse to hire or promote employees belonging to a certain group even if they are qualified (Civil Rights Act 1964). A good example of this situation was the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971) which was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. According to the Courts decision in this case, even if the policy of the company appears to be neutral and non-discriminatory, these policies may still be considered as illegal if these policies have negative impact on certain groups of employees. Another case of disparate impact discrimination can be seen in the celebrated case of Frank Ricci, et al. v. John Destefano, et al. (June 29 2009) which was recently decided by the Supreme Court. This involved firefighters of New Haven, Connecticut who took the test for management promotion given by the City of New Haven. Out of all those who took the test, 17 White and 2 Hispanic firefighters passed. The City Officials sought to invalidate the results of the exam citing that none of the black firefighters scored high enough to qualify for promotion. When the case was elevated to the Supreme Court, the court ruled that the act of the City Officials in declaring the test results as invalid violates the right of the 19 firefighters who passed the test for management promotion. Since the tests were competitive in nature, the fact that no blacks passed cannot be used to invalidate the same. According to the Court, invalidating the test results constitutes disparate impact discrimination and is therefore in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972) also protects workers against sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, sexual stereotyping, racial discrimination, and other forms of discriminative treatment in the workplace that put the worker at a disadvantage (D Emilio,Turner, and Urvashi, 2000). The landmark case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Mechelle Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), helped define the standards for sexual harassment in the workplace. This case also opened the window of opportunity for workers who have been sexually harassed to bring their case to court and demand for compensation. As of 1986, the courts have been quite receptive to complaints filed by employees against sexual harassment (Meritor Savings Bank v. Mechelle Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). As for pregnancy discrimination, Congress has enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to give further protection for pregnant women against discrimination in the workplace. According to this Act, pregnant women should not be unduly deprived of any compensation or benefits while they are pregnant. When it comes to sexual stereotyping, what the law sought to prohibit here is the notion that a certain class or group of people are inferior to the others (D Emilio, Turner, and Urvashi, 2000). For instance, some employers may have policies that prefer male managers over the female thinking that men are better decision makers than women. These kinds of policies are inequitable to women, and thus they are considered to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act and should be prohibited. The Court in the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U. S. 228 (1989) said that there is sexual stereotyping when the employer refuses to promote a woman to higher position despite her qualifications. According to the Court in this case, when a company denies the female employee of career advancement, the company violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972) has also been used to protect the rights of people against racial and religious discrimination in the workplace (Steinberg, Stephen, 2001). Provisions have been used by many workers to protect their rights against racial and religious discrimination in the workplace even up to the present. Yet, despite the fact that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972) prohibits racial and religious discrimination in the workplace, cases of discrimination were still very rampant (Steinberg, Stephen (2001). To minimize if not totally eradicate cases of racial discrimination in the hiring and firing of workers, Congress enacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Act in 1972. Aside from the Civil Rights Act, there are also a number of employment related legislations that prohibit discrimination in the workplace. Some of these legislations are the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 which prohibits employer from using age as one of the qualifications for hiring, firing or promoting an employee, Title I and Title V of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 which prohibits discrimination in the workplace against people with disabilities, Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Repa, 2000). The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was enacted to eradicate the wide discrepancy of salaries and wages between men and women (Repa, 2000). In the past, women were considered as temporary workers and their services were undervalued. Before the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, many women who worked side by side with their male counterparts received considerably lower salaries. Moreover, during this time, job segregation was very common and positions such as secretaries, librarians, and school teachers which were formerly held by men were given to women at lower pay (Repa, 2000). Moreover, as these jobs were now considered as feminine, they become less prestigious. The combination of job segregation and lower pay for women workers prompted congress to enact the Equal Pay Act to 1963. Women workers are the not the only ones which have been subjected to workplace discrimination. Older people and the disabled also experience discrimination. In the past, employers imposed age qualifications to job applicants and employees (Gregory, 2001). Since this practice of using age as one of the qualifications for employment is disadvantageous especially to those people who are already in their 40s, Congress enacted the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 (Gregory, 2001). Under this law, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees because of their age. On the other hand, to protect people who are disabled, Congress enacted Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The ADA is designed to help people who are disabled get a decent job and stay productive. References Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. EEO History http://www.ttb.gov/eeo/history.shtml Burstein, Paul (1998). Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The struggle for equal employment opportunity in the United States Since the new deal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. D Emilio, John, William B. Turner, & Vaid Urvashi (2000). Creating change: sexuality, public policy, and civil rights. New York: St. Martins Press. Gregory, Raymond F. (2001) Age discrimination in the American workplace: Old at a young age. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press Repa, Barbara Kate (2000). Your rights in the workplace. 5th ed., Berkeley, Calif.: Nolo. Sandlers, Ronald (2009) Rici v Stefano the Complete Opinion February 21, 2010 Steinberg, Stephen (2001). Turning back: the retreat from racial justice in American thought and policy. Boston: Beacon Press. Read More