In the U.S. equal treatment and non-discrimination are ensured via a range of laws and institutions. The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established as a federal agency in accordance with the Executive Order 10925 of 1961 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (EEOC, 2016). The major aim of the EEOC is to investigate individuals’ complaints regarding race, nationality, colour, age, gender etc(Shaman, 1971, p.332).. The functioning of the EEOC is a crucial anti-discrimination tool, because it helps to remedy victims of discrimination and prevents new discrimination cases (via the application of punitive damages)(Shaman, 1971, p.332). Major issues, influencing the performance of the EEOC, deal with staffing, excessive workload, backlogs, as well as controversy surrounding some of the EEOC decisions. While my company never appeared in the EEOC cases, the reviews of the EEOC cases are highly useful, when deciding on a specific practice that can influence a company’s compliance with equality and non-discrimination legislation.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was adopted in 1990 to ensure the protection against discrimination related to disability (EEOC, 2016). The standards of protection, envisaged by the ADA, are the same as the ones of the EEOC. Additionally, the ADA obliges employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations and ensure accessibility of public accommodations. The complaints related to the breaches of the ADA are also forwarded to the EEOC. The importance of the ADA for ensuring equal opportunities for persons with disabilities cannot be overestimated. Similar to the case of the EEOC, the practice of implementing the ADA is useful for a company to ensure its compliance with the ADA.
The Age Discrimination Act of 1967 is directed to protecting individuals, aged 40 or older, from the discrimination, based on age (EEOC, 2016). The standards of protection are similar to the ones under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was adopted in 2008 to forbid the use of genetic information in the employment- and insurance-related relations (EEOC, 2016). In particular, the legislation prevents employers from basing their decisions (e.g., hiring, job placement, promotion)on the genetic information about employees that employers know about them. Particularly the GINA serves as an important source of privacy-related BFCQ (Berman, 200,p.750). According to Derry (2011), the adoption of the above acts also significantly contributed to getting marginalized stakeholders engaged into the development of the employment-related policies at different levels.
As an HR manager I will, first of all, try to examine the situation myself and develop a vision of whether the treatment of a middle-class manager was discriminatory or not. Foremost, I would examine the facts of the case, conducting discussions with both sides of the conflict. Then, I would conduct an investigation of the possible legal basis of a case, referring to both the legislative provisions and the practice of the EEOC. In case the claim is well-substantiated and a case can be accepted for consideration by the EEOC, I would first try to get the parties involved into the alterative resolution of a case to avoid the employee’s referral to the EEOC or a court. Before an employee and a middle manager meet a company’s top manager (who will act as a mediator) with regard to the issue, I will suggest an employee meeting me to understand an extent to which an employee is ready to get engaged into further negotiations. It is possible that the management will decide on a compensation for an employee, who experienced discrimination. At the same time, a middle-class manager, who discriminated against an individual at the workplace, will be fined and possible dismissed (dependent on the facts of a case and a severity of a committed breach).If no consensus was found during the negotiations at the workplace, the case would be referred by an employee to the EEOC that will decide on it.
References
Bermann, Jillian B. (2000). Defining the essence of business. An analysis of the title VII’s privacy BFCQS after Johnsons Controls. The University of Chicago Law Review, 67(3), pp.749-755
Derry, R. (2012). Reclaiming marginalized stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), pp.253-264
EEOC (2016). Laws enforced by EEOC. Retrieved 19 June 2016 from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/
Monahan, C. (2013). The failure of the bona fide occupational qualifications in cross-gender prison guard cases: a problem beyond equal employment opportunity. Hypatia, 28(1),pp.101-21
Shaman, J. (1971). Toward defining and abolishing the bona fide occupational qualification based on class status. Labour Law Journal, 22(6), pp.332-341
