1). In this case the federal law that is violated by the employer, especially the individuals who interviewed Chadwick is Title VII. According to Title VII Act of 1964, which highlights the civil rights of the U.S citizens, prohibit individuals from being discriminated in any place based on the color of their skin, sex, religion or gender. In this case, the employers violate the Act in relation to sexual discrimination. Chadwick is denied a promotion chance based on her sex, rather than her capabilities as a woman who has children. According to the employment laws of the U.S and employees is not supposed to be discriminated against by the employer on the basis of her sex when it comes to performance of certain chores (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014). For example, stereotyping a woman based on her motherly duties to deny her an equal chance with a man is a form of sexual plus discrimination that is prohibited under the employment laws as well as through the Title VII Act of 1964.
One of the ways in which Chadwick in this case has been discriminated against is being denied a promotion on the basis of her being a mother with three children according to Miller who was part of the selection panel. The selection panel errors in this scenario and violated the federal law on discrimination in the workplace. They were not supposed to base the decision on the fact that she is a mother to determine whether she is supposed to hold the position under contention. The reply given by Miller on the reason behind her failure to be promoted despite her being the most qualified candidate clearly indicates that sex stereotype was used as the basis of her not being promoted by the selection panel Armstrong (Ridgeway & England, 2007).
2). The decision to promote Chadwick should have been made in this case. First, promotion in the workplace is supposed to be based on merits rather one should not be denied a chance due to the fact that she is a mother. The plaintiff deserved the promotion as she had all the qualifications needed to hold the position in the firm. Her duties as a mother in this case does not in any way contribute to her performance as she has demonstrated in the past performance that she has all it takes to balance between the family demands and the duties given to her in the workplace.
The performance of the employee in the past was good despite her being a mother and having other life responsibilities, such as going to school. Discriminating her against sexual stereotype is morally wrong and also goes against the law that protects the rights of the Americans against being discriminated in any way in their respective places of work. In the case that she did not prove her capabilities, then she would have been denied the opportunity (Boxall & Purcell, 2011). Her family duties based on the arrangements she has with her husband do not provide any evidence that will impact negatively on her performance in the new position.
3). The three individuals who need training in the area of employees selection, particularly on how to comply with the law related to discrimination are Leno, Miller and Brink. The three individuals who were involved in the selection process seems not to understand that it is against the law for any individual to be discriminated against during the employment process based on his or her gender, religion, race and sex. In this case, three panelists fail to understand the law that they are supposed to observe when making the decision of who to employ. In the future, they will need to be trained on how to ensure that they respect the right of individuals not to be discriminated against based on their gender roles in the society, rather their judgment on whether to get a job should be informed by their individual capabilities in relation to the job under consideration (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014). Training the three senior employees on issue to with the law of employment, particularly the clauses dealing with discrimination can make them better in dealing with future selections aimed at filling various positions available in the firm. They should be trained on the legal implications of their action so as to avoid making similar mistakes in the future.
4). Given discrimination is a major problem in the workplace and the defendant company has a discrimination problem, it needs to invest heavily in training programs aimed at addressing the problem. The first program that its need to invest in is the antidiscrimination training programs, where employees from the junior ones to the seniors need to be trained about the need of observing the rule of law in relation to the concept of discrimination (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014). The company needs to ensure that the employees understand the benefits of engaging in behaviors that do not amount to discrimination. Also, informing them about the negative consequences of discrimination in the workplace can also play an instrumental role in ending the vice in the company. Secondly, the senior employees, particularly those involved in the employees’ selection process need to be trained on laws related to discrimination. They seem not to understand what amounts to discrimination and informing them in this case would play a critical role in ensuring that in the future, during the selection of employees there is no form of discrimination that is experienced.
References
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2011). Strategy and human resource management. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ridgeway, C. L., & England, P. (2007). Sociological approaches to sex discrimination in employment. Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives, 189-211.
