There should be negligible rates of discrimination in employment and promotion opportunities solely based on race. Earlier, there were a lot of discrimination in the United States where the blacks could not be appointed to well-paying positions even having the same qualification. However, there was introduction Title VII, which prohibits all the form of discrimination in workplaces (Rutherglen 96). In my opinion, the court was right to rule in the favor of the plaintiff since they proved that they were discriminated despite having the same qualification with the whites who were related to the lieutenant and captain positions.
As a business manager, I would discourage all the forms of discrimination in my company. Promotions should be done based on the individual performance and not based on the race of the person. It would be so healthy to employment since the employees will work hard knowing they have the same opportunity of promotion (Rutherglen 90). The other reason I would avoid discrimination would be avoidance of the disparate impact discrimination and liability to disparate treatment discrimination.
The case has affected my decision in different fields. I have understood that hiring of the personnel should not be based on race or any other disparity, and every applicant should have equal opportunity to get the chance. The promotion should also be based on the performance and test on various tests. On the same note, termination of employees should not be favored by the certain group but should be done according to the terms of employment of contract (Rutherglen 102). Finally, the employer can carry out the disparate impact analysis when faced with termination. The rationale for it is identified whether his actions are discriminatory against the protected group of employees to avoid several liabilities and prevalence of court cases.
Works Cited
Works Cited
Rutherglen, George. "Ricci v DeStefano: Affirmative Action and the Lessons of Adversity." Supreme Court Review (2009): 83-114. Print.
