Following the guidelines of the course ID guidelinesStudent’s NameUniversity
The case study provides significant information about a Sex-based Discrimination case where Laurie Chadwick, an employee of WellPoint Insurance Company, brought a case against her organization under Title VII. In the case against WellPoint Insurance Company, Laurie mentioned that her employers ignored her promotion showing sex-based stereotype such as she has children. Now, considering the severe violation of federal law, this particular paper will figure out which laws were breached. Furthermore, supporting arguments have been produced in this paper in favor of the plaintiff. Added to that, the essence of further organizational training to mitigate such issues has been recommended in this very paper.
Considering the allegation and charges of the plaintiff, such incidents can be regarded as Sex-based Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Blodorn, O'Brien & Kordys, 2011). Sex-based Discrimination involves some inappropriate behaviors to the human resources attached to an organization. Violation of Title VII can be considered if any employer discriminates any of the employee aspects such as hiring, payment, termination, promotion ("Sex-Based Discrimination", 2016). In this case, the plaintiff has got every right to be promoted on the basis of her performance and review points. Apparently, recognizing that Chadwick is the mother of four children, her former interviewer got completely surprised. Finally, the responsibility of the interviewer must be questioned as employee discrimination has been taken place in this very scenario. Therefore, the understanding the seriousness of the issue, Sex Discrimination and work situations, sex discrimination showing stereotypes of being a mother and Sex Discrimination Harassment can be included in the charges against the employers and WellPoint Insurance Company (Lönnqvist, Hennig-Schmidt & Walkowitz, 2015). The victim has not received an appropriate appraisal of her performance and talent.
In this case study, the management officials such as the interviewing officers and Director of Recovery section must be accused of misreading the script. Apart from that, the final decision maker, Nanci Miller must take the responsibility of ignoring the employee review. The allegation of the plaintiff must be critically supported on the basis of the supportive statements she produced to the court. First of all, hearing about her four children the reaction of her supervisor can raise several questions. Finally, the ultimate decision was made by Chadwick though she was the frontrunner of the post. In simplest words, the management has considered the personal obligations of an employee of the performance. Due to childcare responsibility, the management has overlooked Chadwick’s contribution to the organization. Therefore, the organization must be penalized of breaching the federal code of conduct regulating equal opportunity for all human resources.
The case study shows that Chadwick was discriminated for her sex. She was not promoted to the higher position because she was a mother of four children. The decision was taken by the jury of WellPoint, who interviewed Chadwick and found her not suitable for the job because of her motherhood. Hence, it can be seen that the panel of the jury who interviewed Chadwick needs proper training in selection of employees. It was Linda Brink, who previously supervised and worked with Chadwick; Nanci Miller, Chadwick’s present supervisor; and Dawn Leno, the director of Recovery who judge the interview with Chadwick and gave the decision for her non-promotion. Miller said to Chadwick, “It was nothing you did or didn’t do. It was just that you’re going to school, you have the kids, and you just have a lot on your plate right now” (Case 10.2). Whereas, Brink responded negatively during the interview session stating that Chadwick needs more time for her children in place of getting promoted to a higher position. Hence, it can be said that these entire three interviewers need a training and development program to know about the federal laws and rights of the women that regulate the selection procedure of an organization.
It is important to consider the federal laws that govern the employment procedure of an organization. The case study shows that Chadwick was not promoted to a higher position because of her sex and parental responsibilities. The Sex-based Discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guides the rights of the women at the workplace (Connolly, 2001). The identified individuals must go through a training and development process in which they will be taught about the legal regulations and obligations that guide the employment process in an organization. The HR manager of the company must provide a legal session for the identified individuals that will make them aware of the facts of federal laws that safeguard the right of women in the workplace.
The training and development session must cover the following points given below:
Sex discrimination and work situations
Sex discrimination harassment
Sex discrimination and employment practices & policies
All these points must be covered up in the legal training session so that the identified individuals do not repeat the mistakes they did by not promoting Chadwick. The training session will help to develop the employee selection policies of the company by analyzing the previous policies and comparing them with the federal laws and regulations. Hence, the legal training is needed by the individuals to stop the injustice made in the name of Sex-based Discriminations.
References
Blodorn, A., O'Brien, L., & Kordys, J. (2011). Responding to sex-based discrimination: Gender differences in perceived discrimination and implications for legal decision making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(3), 409-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430211427172
Connolly, M. (2001). Discrimination Law: Justification, Alternative Measures and Defences Based on Sex. Industrial Law Journal, 30(3), 311-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ilj/30.3.311
Lönnqvist, J., Hennig-Schmidt, H., & Walkowitz, G. (2015). Ethnicity- and Sex-Based Discrimination and the Maintenance of Self-Esteem. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0124622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124622
Sex-Based Discrimination. (2016). Eeoc.gov. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
