rewriting work

rewriting work

HRM|546

*

  • Title VII as it relates to the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Ways to Minimize Liability for Race & National Origin Discrimination
  • Affirmative Action
  • Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Types of affirmative action: Executive Order 11246, Judicial Remedy, Voluntary
  • What Type of Affirmative Action is Required

The success of any organization depends mainly on the many aspects that need consideration and implementation regarding its processes. State of Estates is one of those organizations. The organization is a national estate planning firm that operates in eight states with 2,500 employees, which needs to look at how it handles its processes regarding Affirmative Action and Title VII.

The following presentation will discuss Affirmative Action and provide an overview of Title VII as applied to race and national origin discrimination. This presentation will discuss ways the organization can minimize liability for race and national origin discrimination in its employment practices. This presentation will further address and provide three types of affirmative action with Executive Order-11246, and Judicial and Voluntary Affirmative Action as well as determining whether any form of affirmative action is required or recommended for the firm.

*

  • National Estate Planning Firm
  • Employees Staff of 2,500
  • Office Locations in Eight States
  • No Known Cases of Workplace Discrimination

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

State of Estates is a national estate planning firm, that employees a staff of 2,500 with offices located in eight states and no known cases of workplace discrimination.

*

  • Affirmative Action
  • What is Affirmative Action?
  • Outcome of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement
  • Term first used by President Kennedy in 1961
  • Executive Order 10925 established Presidents Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-ND

According to Legal Information Institute (n.d.), “Affirmative Action is a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment. In modern American jurisprudence, it typically imposes remedies against discrimination on the basis of, at the very least, race, creed, color, and national origin” (para. 1).

The 1960’s Civil Rights Movement created an outcome that would forever change racial equality based on a person’s race, creed, sex and national origin. The term “separate but equal” was a falsehood regarding these class members, particularly with race and how they were treated. The movement would prompt legislation in the form of Executive Order 10925 that would make it illegal to discriminate based on these classes and signed into law by President Kennedy in March of 1961 (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).

This was also the first time President Kennedy used the term “Affirmative Action” in an Executive Order that prohibits government employers from discriminating against an applicant for employment or current employee based on the individual’s race, creed, color or national origin. The same order would later establish the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, became the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).

*

  • Title VII – Civil Rights Act of 1964 – unlawful for employers to discriminate based on:
  • Race, Color, Sex, Origin, Religion
  • Established protection against employment discrimination
  • Applies to employers with 15 or more employees including state, federal and local governments.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against current and future employees based on the individual’s race, color, sex, national origin, or religion (AAUW, n.d.). The law affects employers with more than 15 employees at the federal, state and local levels. The statute also covers private and public colleges, universities and employment agencies (AAUW, n.d.). The bill was first proposed and introduced to the American public by President Kennedy in 1961 during his televised speech on Civil Rights and would later be signed into law by President Johnson.

*

  • Understanding the scope of Title VII
  • Examination and monitoring of its processes (hiring, termination, etc..)
  • Implement “Zero Tolerance” Policy
  • Employee Handbook

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

States of Estates can minimize its liability and reduce its likelihood of a discrimination lawsuit by reviewing and discussing Title VII with its employees. Because the organization has offices in eight states, they should hire an outside consultant to develop a training program on Title VII outlining the full scope of what it entails. During the training, it should be explained what Title VII covers, who it covers and why they need it. The company will need to train its supervisors on HR procedures, which will allow the managers to gain a better understanding of the different forms of discrimination by its type and how to set boundaries for acceptable behavior

Next, the organization should examine and monitor its retention, promotion, hiring, and disciplinary practices to ensure impartiality. Following that practice, the firm should implement a “Zero Tolerance” policy. The policy goal is to create a workplace free of harassment and other forms of discrimination based on the protected classes under Title VII. Also, the policy, will not condone any kind of retaliation against any employee that reports discrimination under this plan. The policy should be outlined in the employee handbook with the steps on how to file a complaint, insurances that it will be kept confidential and the punishment made clear to the firm and the offender.

*

  • Executive Order 11246 – Equal Opportunity Employer
  • Signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson
  • Established Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
  • Enforces Affirmative Action

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

In June 1965, President Johnson gave the commencement address at Howard University, in Washington, DC where he shared his beliefs on civil rights and nondiscriminatory views when he said: “Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs: History of Executive Order 11246: para. 7). The results from Johnson’s speech, was Executive Order 11246, which he signed into law three months later on September 24, 1965 (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).

The core of Title VII has an affirmative action element as a method of protection against discrimination. Affirmative Action was enforced by Executive Order 11246 and its amendments. The order stipulates that any employer who conducts business with the federal government cannot discriminate with applicants or employees based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015).

*

  • Judicial Action
  • Civil Law Exercised
  • Rights Enforced
  • Penalties Imposed
  • Title VII Gives Courts Power
  • Rules and Regulations Imposed by Courts

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

The judicial affirmative action is remedy ordered by the courts when discrimination has been found. Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2015) stated, “Rather than an affirmative action plan imposed by Executive Order 11246, an employee may sue alleging an employer violated Title VII, and the affirmative action arises in response to a finding of workplace discrimination that must be remedied. Title VII gives courts fairly wide latitude in redressing wrongs. The courts’ imposition of affirmative action as the means of redress is known as judicial affirmative action” (p. 231). Allowing the courts to step in sets precedence for Affirmative Action and how its implemented.

For example, this was the case of Allan Bakke who filed a lawsuit against Regents of the University of California. The case would reach the Supreme Court involving affirmative action regarding admissions to a medical school, rather than employment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Allan Bakke was a white applicant who on two occasions was denied entry to the medical university even with his GPA, MCAT and total benchmark scores higher than his minority counterparts (Cornell Law School, n.d.).

Believing he was discriminated against because of his race, Bakke challenged Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial or ethnic bias in programs that are federally funded. Bakke also believed his Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection had been denied because of the university’s methods of setting aside positions for minorities (O’Neill, 2018). In this case, the court ruled, the use of the University’s racial “quotas” was found unconstitutional in its admissions process, but found they were constitutional in some instances with accepting minority applicants (O’Neill, 2018). The court agreed and voted 5 to 4 in favor of Bakke.

*

  • Voluntary Action
  • Preventable Actions taken by the Employer
  • Private vs Public Actions
  • Are There Requirements of Executive Order 11246
  • Can There be Court Remedies Imposed

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

With voluntary affirmative action, an organization can create prevention methods to help eliminate discrimination but must also satisfy some portion of Title VII. As was found with Weber and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Once again affirmative action would be tested, but this time in the workforce. The case involved Brian Weber who believed he was overlooked for a training program because of his race. In 1974, Weber’s employer, Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corporation entered into a collective bargain agreement with the United Steelworkers Union of America (USWA), which covered 15 of its plants.

In that agreement were provisions of an affirmative action plan, in which the company would aside 50 percent of all openings with its in-plant training craft programs until the rate of African American craft workers was equivalent to the rate of African Americans in the local labor population (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999). At the time, the company’s Louisiana plant employed under two percent of skilled African American workers, even with the local labor force at 39 percent. However, Kaiser’s goal was to have African Americans in approximately 39 percent of its skilled positions. The outcome resulted in Kaiser Aluminum selecting 12 trainees for its craft program of which seven were black, and six were white in its first year of operation (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).

When Weber was not selected, he filed suit charging that Kaiser violated 703(a) and (d) of Title VII by choosing African Americans that had less seniority over him and other white workers (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999). Although the lower court agreed with Weber, the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court. In the decision, the Justices found no basis that Kaiser Aluminum violated 703(a) or (d) by implementing a race-based program, only because the affirmative action program were entered into on a voluntary basis by private parties such as the USWA and Kaiser Aluminum (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).

*

  • Voluntary Affirmative Action Policy Recommended
  • Create Fair Policy to Comply with Title VII
  • Assume Employee Can File Discrimination Lawsuit
  • Comply with EEOC Guidelines

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

After reviewing and outlining the different forms of affirmative action, it would be in the best interest of State of Estates to adopt a voluntary affirmative action plan to avoid employee lawsuits like Weber v. USWA and Kaiser Aluminum. State of Estates would need to create a policy that is not only fair to their employees but one that complies with Title VII along with aspects of the EEOC and its guidelines. Unfortunately, the organization will have to contend with a disgruntle employee if they believe they have been wrongfully terminated or passed over for a promotion so they should always assume the employee can and will file a lawsuit.

*

State of Estates is in a unique position because they are a private entity and they do not necessarily need an affirmative action plan, nor are they bound by Executive Order 11246. However, because they have 2,500 employees, they are bound by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits them from discrimination against their current staff and future applicants based on the person’s classification. Because there are no known cases of discrimination, the organization needs to emphasize the importance of the Civil Rights Act and the EEOC. As a method of prevention State of Estates should create an Affirmative Action plan and incorporate training that details what Title VII and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 is, who it covers and its importance to the organization and its employees. In the end, State of Estates can minimize its liability by following the recommendations as listed and by educating its staff on the importance on the laws that were created to protect those regardless the person’s race, color, sex, national origin, or religion.

*

  • AAUW. (n.d.). Know Your Rights: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do-/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/title-vii/
  • Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2015). Employment Law for Business (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Legal Law Institute. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265
  • Department of Labor. (2011). Religious Discrimination and Accommodation in the Federal Workplace. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2011-Religious-Discrimination-and-Accomodation.pdf
  • Mikula, I. M., & Mabunda, L. M. (1999). United Steelworkers of America v. Weber. Great American Court Cases, 3. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/apps/doc/EJ2303200475/OVIC?u=phoenix&xid=f9fd2559
  • National Conference on State Legislature. (2014, February 7). Affirmative Action Overview. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-overview-aspx
  • O’Neill, T. (2018, March 9). Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In the Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780195379396.001.001/acref-9780195379396-e-472.
  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc/gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
  • United States Department of Labor. (n.d.). Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/about/50thAnniversaryHistory.html

*

*

The success of any organization depends mainly on the many aspects that need consideration and implementation regarding its processes. State of Estates is one of those organizations. The organization is a national estate planning firm that operates in eight states with 2,500 employees, which needs to look at how it handles its processes regarding Affirmative Action and Title VII.

The following presentation will discuss Affirmative Action and provide an overview of Title VII as applied to race and national origin discrimination. This presentation will discuss ways the organization can minimize liability for race and national origin discrimination in its employment practices. This presentation will further address and provide three types of affirmative action with Executive Order-11246, and Judicial and Voluntary Affirmative Action as well as determining whether any form of affirmative action is required or recommended for the firm.

*

State of Estates is a national estate planning firm, that employees a staff of 2,500 with offices located in eight states and no known cases of workplace discrimination.

*

According to Legal Information Institute (n.d.), “Affirmative Action is a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment. In modern American jurisprudence, it typically imposes remedies against discrimination on the basis of, at the very least, race, creed, color, and national origin” (para. 1).

The 1960’s Civil Rights Movement created an outcome that would forever change racial equality based on a person’s race, creed, sex and national origin. The term “separate but equal” was a falsehood regarding these class members, particularly with race and how they were treated. The movement would prompt legislation in the form of Executive Order 10925 that would make it illegal to discriminate based on these classes and signed into law by President Kennedy in March of 1961 (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).

This was also the first time President Kennedy used the term “Affirmative Action” in an Executive Order that prohibits government employers from discriminating against an applicant for employment or current employee based on the individual’s race, creed, color or national origin. The same order would later establish the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, became the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).

*

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against current and future employees based on the individual’s race, color, sex, national origin, or religion (AAUW, n.d.). The law affects employers with more than 15 employees at the federal, state and local levels. The statute also covers private and public colleges, universities and employment agencies (AAUW, n.d.). The bill was first proposed and introduced to the American public by President Kennedy in 1961 during his televised speech on Civil Rights and would later be signed into law by President Johnson.

*

States of Estates can minimize its liability and reduce its likelihood of a discrimination lawsuit by reviewing and discussing Title VII with its employees. Because the organization has offices in eight states, they should hire an outside consultant to develop a training program on Title VII outlining the full scope of what it entails. During the training, it should be explained what Title VII covers, who it covers and why they need it. The company will need to train its supervisors on HR procedures, which will allow the managers to gain a better understanding of the different forms of discrimination by its type and how to set boundaries for acceptable behavior

Next, the organization should examine and monitor its retention, promotion, hiring, and disciplinary practices to ensure impartiality. Following that practice, the firm should implement a “Zero Tolerance” policy. The policy goal is to create a workplace free of harassment and other forms of discrimination based on the protected classes under Title VII. Also, the policy, will not condone any kind of retaliation against any employee that reports discrimination under this plan. The policy should be outlined in the employee handbook with the steps on how to file a complaint, insurances that it will be kept confidential and the punishment made clear to the firm and the offender.

*

In June 1965, President Johnson gave the commencement address at Howard University, in Washington, DC where he shared his beliefs on civil rights and nondiscriminatory views when he said: “Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs: History of Executive Order 11246: para. 7). The results from Johnson’s speech, was Executive Order 11246, which he signed into law three months later on September 24, 1965 (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).

The core of Title VII has an affirmative action element as a method of protection against discrimination. Affirmative Action was enforced by Executive Order 11246 and its amendments. The order stipulates that any employer who conducts business with the federal government cannot discriminate with applicants or employees based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015).

*

The judicial affirmative action is remedy ordered by the courts when discrimination has been found. Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2015) stated, “Rather than an affirmative action plan imposed by Executive Order 11246, an employee may sue alleging an employer violated Title VII, and the affirmative action arises in response to a finding of workplace discrimination that must be remedied. Title VII gives courts fairly wide latitude in redressing wrongs. The courts’ imposition of affirmative action as the means of redress is known as judicial affirmative action” (p. 231). Allowing the courts to step in sets precedence for Affirmative Action and how its implemented.

For example, this was the case of Allan Bakke who filed a lawsuit against Regents of the University of California. The case would reach the Supreme Court involving affirmative action regarding admissions to a medical school, rather than employment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Allan Bakke was a white applicant who on two occasions was denied entry to the medical university even with his GPA, MCAT and total benchmark scores higher than his minority counterparts (Cornell Law School, n.d.).

Believing he was discriminated against because of his race, Bakke challenged Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial or ethnic bias in programs that are federally funded. Bakke also believed his Fourteenth Amendment rights of equal protection had been denied because of the university’s methods of setting aside positions for minorities (O’Neill, 2018). In this case, the court ruled, the use of the University’s racial “quotas” was found unconstitutional in its admissions process, but found they were constitutional in some instances with accepting minority applicants (O’Neill, 2018). The court agreed and voted 5 to 4 in favor of Bakke.

*

With voluntary affirmative action, an organization can create prevention methods to help eliminate discrimination but must also satisfy some portion of Title VII. As was found with Weber and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Once again affirmative action would be tested, but this time in the workforce. The case involved Brian Weber who believed he was overlooked for a training program because of his race. In 1974, Weber’s employer, Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corporation entered into a collective bargain agreement with the United Steelworkers Union of America (USWA), which covered 15 of its plants.

In that agreement were provisions of an affirmative action plan, in which the company would aside 50 percent of all openings with its in-plant training craft programs until the rate of African American craft workers was equivalent to the rate of African Americans in the local labor population (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999). At the time, the company’s Louisiana plant employed under two percent of skilled African American workers, even with the local labor force at 39 percent. However, Kaiser’s goal was to have African Americans in approximately 39 percent of its skilled positions. The outcome resulted in Kaiser Aluminum selecting 12 trainees for its craft program of which seven were black, and six were white in its first year of operation (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).

When Weber was not selected, he filed suit charging that Kaiser violated 703(a) and (d) of Title VII by choosing African Americans that had less seniority over him and other white workers (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999). Although the lower court agreed with Weber, the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court. In the decision, the Justices found no basis that Kaiser Aluminum violated 703(a) or (d) by implementing a race-based program, only because the affirmative action program were entered into on a voluntary basis by private parties such as the USWA and Kaiser Aluminum (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).

*

After reviewing and outlining the different forms of affirmative action, it would be in the best interest of State of Estates to adopt a voluntary affirmative action plan to avoid employee lawsuits like Weber v. USWA and Kaiser Aluminum. State of Estates would need to create a policy that is not only fair to their employees but one that complies with Title VII along with aspects of the EEOC and its guidelines. Unfortunately, the organization will have to contend with a disgruntle employee if they believe they have been wrongfully terminated or passed over for a promotion so they should always assume the employee can and will file a lawsuit.

*

*


Comments are closed.