1. Describe the current climate toward EEO laws and regulations.
Ans: Varies. Every public opinion poll based on representative national samples drawn
... [Show More] between 1950 and the present shows that a majority of Americans--Black, Brown, and White--support EEO and reject differential treatment based on race, regardless of its alleged purposes or results. There is agreement about the ends to be achieved, but there is disagreement about the means to be used (Von Drehle, 2003). EEO has been, and is still, an emotionally charged issue. Congress has provided sound legal bases for effecting changes in EEO through sweeping civil rights legislation. Subsequently, thousands of dissatisfied groups and individuals have won substantial redress on many issues by availing themselves of their legal rights. The combination of the motivation to rectify perceived inequities and an easily available legal framework for doing so has made the legal aspects of the employment relationship a dominant issue in HRM today.
Learning Objective: 2-1: Describe the framework of the U.S. legal system.
Cognitive Domain: Comprehension
Answer Location: Chapter Opener
Difficulty Level: Medium
AACSB: Diverse and multicultural work environments
2. Describe the types of evidence someone would need to use in order to prove a case of disparate treatment.
Ans: Cases that rely on direct evidence of the intention to discriminate. Such cases are proven with direct evidence of pure bias based on an open expression of hatred, disrespect, or inequality, knowingly directed against members of a particular group.
Blanket exclusionary policies--for example, deliberate exclusion of an individual whose disability (e.g., an impairment of her ability to walk) has nothing to do with the requirements of the job she is applying for (financial analyst).
Cases that are proved through circumstantial evidence of the intention to discriminate (see Schwager v. Sun Oil Co. of Pa., p. XX), including those that rely on statistical evidence as a method of circumstantially proving the intention to discriminate systematically against classes of individuals.
Mixed-motive cases (a hybrid theory) that often rely on both direct evidence of the intention to discriminate on some impermissible basis (e.g., gender, race, or disability), and proof that the employer’s stated legitimate basis for its employment decision is actually just a pretext for illegal discrimination.
Learning Objective: 2-3: Explain the two major legal theories of unfair employment discrimination.
Cognitive Domain: Comprehension
Answer Location: Unfair Discrimination: What Is It?
Difficulty Level: Hard
AACSB: Diverse and multicultural work environments
3. Who does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to? Who are exempt from it?
Ans: In 1973, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act expanded Title VII’s coverage to public and private employers (including state and local governments and public and private educational institutions) with 15 or more employees, labor organizations with 15 or more members, and both public and private employment agencies. These amendments provide broad coverage under Title VII, with the following exceptions: (1) private clubs, (2) places of employment connected with an Indian reservation, and (3) religious organizations (which are allowed to discriminate because of religion) [Title VII, Sections 701(a), 702, and 703(i)]. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board, rather than the EEOC, monitor nondiscrimination and affirmative action programs of the federal government.
Learning Objective: 2-5: Identify the six exemptions to Title VII coverage.
Cognitive Domain: Comprehension
Answer Location: Retaliation, and Employment Advertising
Difficulty Level: Medium
AACSB: Diverse and multicultural work environments
4. Define disability and essential function and how the two interact according to the law.
Ans: As a general rule, the ADA prohibits an employer from discriminating against a “qualified individual with a disability.” A “qualified individual” is one who is able to perform the “essential” (i.e., primary) functions of a job with or without accommodation. An employer’s written job description is key to determining essential functions (Danaher, 2013). The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 prohibits consideration of mitigating measures in determining whether an individual has a disability, with the exception of ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses (Brennan, 2009). A “disability” is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as walking, talking, seeing, hearing, or learning. Persons are protected if they currently have an impairment, if they have a record of such an impairment, or if the employer thinks they have an impairment (e.g., a person with diabetes under control) (EEOC, 2017d).
Learning Objective: 2-4: Understand the major legal principles that define key civil rights laws.
Cognitive Domain: Comprehension
Answer Location: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (as Amended in 2008)
Difficulty Level: Medium
AACSB: Application of knowledge
5. What are goals and timetables as they relate to the OFCCP and how do contractors comply with the requirements of this office?
Ans: Whenever job categories include fewer women or minorities “than would reasonably be expected by their availability,” the contractor must establish goals and timetables (subject to OFCCP review) for increasing their representation. Goals are distinguishable from quotas in that quotas are inflexible; goals, on the other hand, are flexible objectives that can be met in a realistic amount of time. In determining representation rates, OFCCP suggests that contractors use eight criteria, including the population of women and minorities in the labor area surrounding the facility, the general availability of women and minorities having the requisite skills in the immediate labor area or in an area in which the contractor can reasonably recruit, and the degree of training the contractor is reasonably able to undertake as a means of making all job classes available to women and minorities.
Ans: B
Learning Objective: 2-4: Understand the major legal principles that define key civil rights laws.
Cognitive Domain: Comprehension
Answer Location: Goals and Timetables
Difficulty Level: Medium
AACSB: Application of knowledge
6. Explain the legality of asking applicants about arrest and conviction history.
Ans: Arrest records, by their very nature, are not valid bases for screening candidates because in our society a person who is arrested is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It might, therefore, appear that conviction records are always permissible bases for applicant screening. In fact, conviction records may not be used in evaluating applicants unless the conviction is directly related to the work to be performed--for example, when a person convicted of embezzlement applies for a job as a bank teller (cf. Hyland v. Fukuda, 1978). In addition, employers should consider carefully the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and whether the candidate is a repeat offender (Maurer, 2015a). As of 2017, 24 states and more than 150 cities and counties have passed “ban the box” laws that require organizations to remove the check box that asks if a candidate has ever been convicted of a crime. Instead, they require employers first to conduct a job interview to see if someone is qualified, and then do a background investigation and analysis of whether a conviction is job-related (Nagele-Piazza, 2017).
Learning Objective: 2-4: Understand the major legal principles that define key civil rights laws.
Cognitive Domain: Comprehension
Answer Location: Personal History
Difficulty Level: Medium
AACSB: Application of knowledge
7. Brief discuss the legality of “English Only” rules in the workplace.
Ans: Employees who speak a language other than English claim that such rules are not related to the ability to do a job and have a harsh impact on them because of their national origin. In its enforcement guidance on national origin discrimination (EEOC, 2016d), the EEOC emphasizes that blanket English-only rules that lack business justification amount to unlawful national-origin discrimination. Many courts agree. Employers should be careful when instituting such a rule. Doing so because of bias against employees of a particular national origin clearly violates Title VII. While it is not necessarily illegal to make fluency in English a job requirement or to discipline an employee for violating an “English-only” rule, an employer must be able to show there is a legitimate business need for it. For example, it’s a safety issue when medical workers or firefighters do not understand or cannot make themselves understood (Bell, 2017). The legality of a restrictive language policy that is not applied at all times and in all areas of the workplace will depend on whether the employer can show the policy is job [Show Less]