Equal Employment Opportunities Commission - Research Paper Example

Equal Employment Opportunities Commission Introduction As a result of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the American public recognized the importance of ‘equal protection of the laws’. The mood of the entire public was in favor of a national debate on the provisions of the constitution towards racial segregation and wanted to know if prohibiting the use of ethnic, gender or racial based parameters was sufficient and appropriate in bringing about social justice. In essence, the public expected the government to adhere to its promise of the 14th amendment and thereby grant equal rights and recognition to African-Americans (Berryman-Fink, 2007). The civil rights act was passed by the Congress in 1964 that prohibited discrimination in all forms. It also forbade employers from recruiting or relieving employees on the based on gender or ethnicity. While the issue of race has been the cornerstone for the Civil rights act, the inclusion of gender into this provision happened much later due to the efforts of Representative Howard Smith. While skeptics alleged that Smith has done so in order to weaken support for the bill, the latter argued that he had done so only to demonstrate his support for the National Women’s Party. The inclusion of gender gains significance especially in cases where it is a distinctive attribute necessary for the job. The title VII of the Civil Rights Act led to the creation of the ‘Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC)’, which is the focus of this research study. The primary purpose of the EEOC is to ensure that no employers can (Choate, 2009): "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." McDermott (2009) says that the role and significance of the EEOC has expanded over the years due to subsequent laws. Currently, the EEOC is tasked with eliminating discrimination in the hiring, firing and promotion of employees on the basis of race, gender, religion, color, age, ethnicity or physical disabilities. The EEOC also protects workers from discrimination in pay, training and the number of working hours. While the debate to assign protected-class status to each of these employee classes has been ongoing for several years, the role of affirmative action is also an important domain that influences the operation of the EEOC and is discussed in subsequent sections. About the Commission The EEOC was formed on 2nd July, 1965 out of six different statutes including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the 2008 ADA Amendments Act (Stallworth, 2008). Thus, the EEOC has been affected by several statues over the years (Doan, 2009). Each year, the commission handles thousands of complaints related to discrimination and harassment in the private sector, For instance, over 100,000 complaints were filed in 2009 alone. The number of complaints that were eventually filed as cases is historically low (only 300 cases filed in 2009), and are regarded as public records (Keppler, 2010). The cases handled by the EEOC receive widespread coverage in the media and are often discussed extensively in regional radio and television based on the state of origin of the involved parties. Cases that are deemed to have national ramifications are revealed by the press office of EEOC at its offices in Washington. The EEOC is headed by a number of commissioners and the general counsel who are appointed by the President of the United States. Such appointments must also be ratified by the Senate. The EECO operates through a central office that is assisted through a network of regional Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices. The latter process the information and complaints received as per the provisions of the various laws discussed in the preceding section. The regional EEOs also train agency employees in the various statutes and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (Henneman, 2008). There is also the nationwide program team that formulates final decisions on the filed complaints and forwards them to the associate administrative for approval. The agency also has various protocols to ensure internal compliance with all statutes and constantly monitors its personnel for any violations. Given the huge volume of applications received annually by the EEOC’s enforcement program, incoming complaints are categorized into 3 groups to assign appropriate resources and streamline the investigation. According to Keppler (2010), the top priority complaints (Group A) undergo broader investigation and take longer durations to settle. Complaints that have come merit but need some further assessment are put into Group B. Cases that do not fall under the purview of the EEOC’s framework or do not fulfil the basic criteria are put in Group C and are not investigated further. The EEOC earns almost equally from settlement and litigation awards in the form of benefits. The EEOC’s guidelines stipulate the need to encourage settlement among the involved parties at all times during the investigation process. To achieve this, the EEOC has an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) program that is based on voluntary participation. The ADR comprises neutral mediators who negotiate with the parties and maintain absolute confidentiality throughout the entire process. The ADR has successfully resolved over 9,000 cases in 2009 (Reese, 2010). Purpose of the EEOC Cohen (2009) defines Affirmative Action as the compulsory and voluntary initiatives that are aimed at upholding the civil rights of specific sections of the society by providing them special opportunities and using positive actions to elevate their social status and protect them from discrimination. However, the question in the mind of the average American citizen, with regards to Affirmative Actions, is whether the rights and opportunities of one class may be infringed upon or compromised to benefit another societal class for historical and social reasons. As an independent regulatory authority, the EEOC is tasked with overseeing the appropriate implementation of Affirmative Action without affecting prospects or benefits to any section of the public. To achieve this, the EEOC has been given increasing powers over the years to carry out decisive roles such as filing lawsuits, organizing reconciliation events, undertaking investigations and promoting voluntary initiatives to promote equal opportunities (Reese, 2010). While affirmative action may provide benefits to specific classes, the role of the EEOC in this context is to eliminate discrimination in all forms. Apart from preventing discrimination at the workplace, the regulatory framework of the EEOC is also focused towards prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age. The 1967 Age Discrimination Act stipulates that no individual above 40 years of age is to be discriminated by their employer on any grounds other than those associated with performance and other tangible factors that are associated with the individual’s work and productivity. The Title I of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits any form of discrimination on the basis of an individual’s physical disabilities (Zimmerman, 2008). The only exception to this rule is employment in the federal government where important jobs in services such as defence may only be offered to individuals without any disabilities. The 1963 Equal Pay Act forbids any form of discrimination among male and female workers as long as they operate within similar environments. The 1973 Rehabilitation Act strengthens the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act by prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals employed in the federal government. The 1972 Education Act provided a similar framework for implementation in the education sector. All these statutes received a boost in 1991 by the passing of the Civil Rights Act which allowed people to claim monetary compensation against alleged cases of discrimination (Moore, 2007). Today, employers are also required to consider pregnancy as an integral component of healthcare benefit plans under the provisions of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The 2008 Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act is the latest statute to be included under the EECO and prohibits discrimination among healthcare employers and insurance companies based on an individual’s genetic information. Thus, insurance companies are prohibited from performing genetic tests on individuals to determine their susceptibility to various diseases. The functioning of the EEOC has also received help on a regular basis from the federal government. One of the earliest instances of such assistance came from an executive order passed by President Lyndon Johnson that mandated all government contractors to adopt affirmative action in their recruitment procedures thereby ensuring that all job applicants were given equal opportunities. President Nixon extended these rules to the class of gender and outlined clear goals to eliminate the gross under-representation of women and ethnic minorities in the federal services. In fact, there have been as many as 165 federal programs or initiatives associated with affirmative action to this day and are being enforced with adequate assistance from state and local administration (Pickerill, 2008). The Courts also have a role to play in strengthening the role of the EEOC in ending discrimination. Since 1974, the courts have accepted numerous cases associated with gender equality (Reese, 2010). Some of the notable actions of the courts in this context include the removal of mandatory leave of pregnancy and arbitrary requirements for height and weight. Courts have also been watchful towards affirmative action by restricting it to benefit only those groups that have been discriminated against in the past. States and Counties have also been encouraged to enforce similar legislation that forbids discrimination. By the 1980s, collective action by the legislature, executive and the judiciary has achieved at least partial success in delivering equal protection to all citizens. The nodal point for implementing their mandates as well as receiving feedback from the public (through complaints, filings etc) is the EEOC (Johnston, 2008). The activities of the EEOC have also caused distortions in the political domain. While the conservatives regard the EEOC as an unnecessary and cumbersome effort by the government and promote the notion of lesser regulations, the liberals view the commission as best equipped at assisting the disadvantaged sections of the society. The EEOC also coordinates the duty of collecting financial benefits and compensation for people who file cases of discrimination. For example, the EEOC successfully negotiated a $35 million out-of-court settlement with Mitsubishi Motor Company in 2001 that led to a sweeping change in the latter’s policy on sexual harassment prevention. The agency collected over $632 million in 2009 through similar activities (Choate, 2009). Filing a discrimination claim with the EEOC Registering a complaint against a purported discrimination with EEOC is a relatively simple and easy process. Besides, one does not need to have a watertight case at hand in order to file a complaint. Firstly, complainants have to provide their basic details like name, address and contact details along with details of their respective employer whom they are complaining against. A short account of the events that were believed to be discriminatory in nature and the complainant’s reasoning in favour of these claims must also be submitted. Registering a complaint with the EEOC has traditionally proved effective and yielded many positive results. For the year 2010, the commission received more than 106,000 complaints against employers and filed over 270 lawsuits on behalf of the most qualifying complainants. The commission also received $90 million in compensation for victims and settled over 320 cases from the preceding year. Of these, over 34,000 complaints were made on racial discrimination, 27,000 on gender based discrimination, 4,000 on religious segregation and 12,000 on ethnic discrimination (Keppler, 2010). Consider the recent case of Ralph DeVito versus Infosys Technologies. The complainant, Ralph DeVito, claimed that he was not allowed to apply for a job listing under Infosys Technologies on the popular job portal monster.com. The job posting set a maximum experience requirement of 15 years for a qualified applicant, which DeVito alleged amounted to an age limit. Invoking his rights under the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), DeVito, who was aged 58 years, filed a complaint with the EEOC. The EEOC analyzed the case and concluded that DeVito had indeed been discriminated against by the Indian IT major (Keppler, 2010). However, the EEOC did not choose to file a lawsuit even though it acknowledged this violation. Recently, DeVito filed a lawsuit in February, 2011 and a trial is underway. According to Befus (2008), people who have a legitimate case of discrimination stand a very good chance of receiving assistance from EEOC. In fact, the ADEA entitles the courts to reinstate a complainant like DeVito to the same position for which he was discriminated against. Additionally, any monetary compensation that the complainant may seek can also be considered as part of the lawsuit under the provisions of the act. In cases where the complicity of the employer is proved, the court can award even double the amount owed to the complainant. Nevertheless, the EECO is a simple intermediary that relieves people from having to approach the courts for seeking damages. The EEOC also organized negotiations and out-of-court settlements to ensure a faster resolution of cases (Henneman, 2008). In fact, employees are required to register their grievances with the EEOC prior to approaching the courts for justice. The victim is free to file a lawsuit thereafter irrespective of the ruling of the EECO. Conclusion The EEOC has a long history and purpose to eliminate discrimination at the workplace in all its forms. Established by a statue of the law in 1864, the EEOC has evolved to take up complaints on virtually all forms of discrimination and continues to be influenced by newer legislation. While not enforcing at all times, the EEOC has the wherewithal to investigate a complaint and determine the root causes of the reported issue or violation (McDermott, 2009). The EEOC has the powers to recommend corrective action if discrimination is proved and its cases are covered extensively by the media. As a result, the EEOC acts as a deterrent to employers from resorting to any sort of discrimination against their employees. The EEOC also provides a platform for employees to file charges against their employers and has the resources to scrutinize each case and take up the ones that deserve the most attention. While employee discrimination in the United States is at lower levels in comparison to previous decades, there is still room for further improvement. The EEOC needs to be strengthened further through future legislation and should be provided more power and resources to undertake better investigations into complaints by employees. References 1. Befus (2008), New sexual harassment prevention measures. National Real Estate Investor, 52. 2. Berryman-Fink (2007), Women’s responses to sexual harassment at work: Organizational policy versus employee practice. Employment Relations Today, 28(2), 59-62. 3. Choate (2009), History/Overview of EEOCs Mediation Program. Washington D.C.: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC. 4. Cohen (2009), Reflections of an EEOC mediator. Employment Rights Quarterly, 1(1), 25-30. 5. Doan (2009), How to conduct sexual harassment training effectively. Equal Opportunities International, 16(5/7), 29-33 6. Henneman (2008), After high court ruling, firms may want to take long look at anti-harassment strategies. Workforce Management, 87(15), 35-38. 7. Johnston (2008), EEOC universal agreements to mediate—Peer pressure or strategic move? Helms Mulliss Wicker 8. Keppler (2010), The EEOC’s alternative dispute resolution program: A more civil approach to civil rights disputes. Review of Business, 26 (2), 40-45. 9. McDermott (2009), An evaluation of the EEOC mediation program. Washington D.C.: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 10. Moore (2007), Sexual harassment in manufacturing: Seven strategies successful companies use to curb it. Industrial Management, 41(5), 17-21. 11. Pickerill (2008), Changing perceptions of sexual harassment in the federal workforce, 1987-2008. Law & Policy, 30(3), 350-356. 12. Reese (2010), Employee satisfaction with sexual harassment policies: The training connection. Public Personnel Management, 35(1), 101-126. 13. Stallworth (2008), Discrimination in the workplace: How mediation can help. Dispute Resolution Journal, 56 (1): 36-45. 14. Zimmerman (2008), The equal employment opportunity commission’s mediation program. The CPA Journal, 70 (4), 68-70. Read More