Crone v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) - Essay Example

Equal Employment Opportunity The effects of Crone V United Parcel Services Inc. The US Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District court clearing UPS of discrimination in the case where Ms Crone claimed sexual discrimination on the grounds that she was not promoted to a supervisor’s position. The purpose of this paper is to review the case in question and ascertain what, if any, impact it may have upon other cases of potential unlawful excuses for discrimination. In addition, DWI has asked us to examine whether it is ethical to include the findings of this case in their EEO book and training program.

We find that, in view of Ms Crones own admission to not having appropriate skills, there is no impact on potential discrimination cases and that, within certain boundaries, it would be ethical to include part of the findings within an EEO book and training.Joint and Several Liability Following the decision of the US Court of Appeal, 8th Circuit, to uphold the District Courts ruling that United Parcel Services Inc were not guilty of discrimination in not promoting Ms Crone to the position of Supervisor, two questions arise.

Does this open up a possible avenue for future unlawful excuses for discrimination? Is it ethical for DWI1 to include the principals of this case in their Equal Employment Opportunity manual and as part of their training?The facts of the case are these. Ms Crone applied, through her department manager, for a vacant position as supervisor. However, the manager did not recommend Ms Crone, stating that he was afraid she might cry in a confrontational situation. The person who made the final decision also stated that she was declined “because of her inability to handle confrontational situations, her lack of leadership qualities.

” Ms Crone then brought a case for sexual discrimination. However, she accepted that the position required confrontational skills and that; previously she had exhibited some difficulties in this area. The result was that the appeal was denied and the District Court judgement confirmed. The first point to note here relates to whether there was a discrimination based on sex. Section 2000e-2 [Section 703] if the Civil Rights Act (1997) states that an employers must not seek “(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

” In the case in question this is not the case. The decision was made on the basis of lack of appropriate skills. By her own acceptance of the fact that she had displayed a lack of such skills, and aknowledging such skills were necessary for the position, Ms Crone put herself in the position of not being able to support her claim. This is certainly the case if, as seems to be true, the person who was appointed to the supervisor position possessed the necessary skills.Results Upon studying the case we find that it would be difficult for another employer to use the findings as an unlawful reason for discrimination.

To do so they would have to provide evidence to support their claim that the person in question was unsuitably qualified, rather than being discriminated against. Clearly in the UPS case, Ms Crone’s own statements supported the defendants counterclaim. This is unlikely to happen in a true unlawful case of discrimination. In order to advise DWI as to whether the findings of this case should be included within their Equal Employment Opportunity document, we have studied a similar document produced by Maricopa Colleges (2006).

On page 23 of this document (EEO Policy Statement [AR 5.1.34]) the college states that it is their policy “to promote equal employment opportunities through a positive continuing program,” The advice that we would give to DWI, for the purpose of avoiding any possibility of doubt or misunderstanding, is to add a rider to such a policy statement. We would suggest that such a rider should be termed “with the proviso that they exhibited and have achieved the relevant levels of skills and abilities required for the position.

” From the training aspect it is our view that such a program must contain the framework for the building of personal skill on an equal basis. Providing this is the case, this will significantly reduce the possibility of discrimination claims. Our conclusion is that in the Crones v UPS case, the acceptance of both parties as to the level of skills required for the supervisor position, and the comments by both that Ms Crone had displayed lack of such skills, the ruling does not provide a vehicle for unlawful discrimination.

However to avoid potential discriminatory problems at earlier career levels, it is necessary to ensure employees receive equal opportunties to be trained in such skills. ReferencesCrone v United Parcel Service Inc (UPS). United States Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit. No. 01-3595.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.(revised 1997) The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved 10 September 2006 from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.htmlThe Blue Book (2006) All Employee Group Policies.

Maricopa Community Colleges.