Corporate Labor Relations
Introduction
In the year 2000, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against General Motors Corporations on behalf of a black female worker named Mary Scott. It alleged that Ms. Scott was subjected to constant sexual harassment and racially slurred comments from her colleagues. The GM management was further accused of either participating or tolerating such behaviour. In addition, a colleague of Ms. Scott, who had supported her case, was discriminated against. This was a classic case of sexual and racial harassment against an employee that belonged to a minority. Conversely, The Centre for Individual Right, henceforth known as CIR, in 2005 filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development on behalf of Dennis Worth, a White male, who accused the HUD of denying him employment based on his gender and race. The EEOC was also accused in the case evaluating, encouraging and approving HUD’s Affirmative employment Plan (AEP). This case was much more complex in nature when compared to the GM case, as both, CIT as well OOEC were applying civil rights and employee rights.
Analysis of EEOC vs. General Motors Corporation
The EEOC filed a consolidated lawsuit against GM, alleging that it had violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2000, accused GM of failing to provide Mary Scott, a Black female employee at its Linden, New Jersey plant, and her fellow African – American colleagues, with a work environment that was free from sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Further, the EEOC alleged that GM retaliated against Melvin Wood, Ms. Scott’s colleague, who supported her claims when she brought her plight to the notice of the GM management. Under Title VII, it is illegal to deny any person an employment opportunity because of his or her race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In addition, it is unlawful to retaliate against a person who complains about treatment that he or she reasonably believes is discriminatory . The lawsuit was resolved by the EEOC in 2001, with GM agreeing to pay US$ 1.2 million in compensation to Ms. Scott and 14 of her African-American colleagues, including Mr. Wood. In addition, GM was also to re-develop its policies in order to conform with Title VII, to develop appropriate procedures to resolve employee grievances as well as train all its employees on the nuances of worker rights.
Analysis of Worth vs. Jackson
CIR filed a case against HUD on behalf of Dennis Worth, a White male, who had applied for four different job openings in HUD and was denied employment. Mr. Worth alleged that he was denied employment as HUD’s employment policies emphasized the preference to balance its female and minority work force. The EEOC was also accused in the case as it has evaluated and approved HUD’s Affirmative Employment Plan. While Mr. Worth did not challenge his denial of employment in any of the four job opportunities, he alleged that his rights as an employee under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution that prevents discrimination against a person based on his or her race or gender. The court dismissed Mr. Worth’s case on the basis that he failed to prove any adverse employment action as was required by Title VII. However, the EEOC replaced its Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive MD-714 with MD-715 which stated that: agencies have an ongoing obligation to eliminate barriers that impede free and open competition in the workplace and prevent individuals of any racial or national origin group or either sex from realizing their full potential . HUD’s AEP had expired prior to MD-715 being formed and it declined to renew it as per EEOC’s new Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive.
Summary of Ethical Breaches
In the case of EEOC vs. General Motors, it is clear that GM had ethically breached its employees’ right to equal treatment. Ms. Scott was subject to both racial as well as gender discrimination. In addition, her right to a safe and secure work environment was also breached as had to tolerate sexual harassment. The lack of action on the part of GM’s management clearly showed that they either tolerated or, in several incidents, condoned such acts. Further, by retaliating against Mr. Wood for supporting Ms. Scott’s case, the GM management attempted to intentionally deny justice to Ms. Scott. In all these incidences, the treatment meted out to Ms. Scott, Mr. Wood and their African –American colleagues was illegal.
The legality of Mr. Worth’s discrimination claims in the Worth vs. Jackson case, however, remains debatable. While HUD’s policy towards providing employment opportunities to females and minorities was in accordance to EEOC directive, its refusal to renew its AEP as per MD-715 is questionable. While Mr. Worth’s case was dismissed, it cannot be denied that equal employment opportunity does not imply preferential treatment based on gender or race, even for females and minorities. Equal Employment Opportunity applies to all employees, regardless of the race, religion, gender or any other differentiating factor. The EEOC is justified in revising its Management Directive to accommodate this thinking.
Works Cited
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2001, September 26). EEOC RESOLVES LAWSUITS FOR $1.25 MILLION AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION. Retrieved July 18, 2011, from www.eeoc.gov: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-26-01.cfm
United States Court of Appeals. (2006, June 23). Worth vs Jackson Appeal. Retrieved July 18, 2011, from ww.fedcivilrights.org: http://www.fedcivilrights.org/Worth%20v.%20Jackson%20Appeal%2006.pdf
