The US remains one of the most unequal nations in the world. Racial minorities encounter hardships in their quest for such opportunities as employment, education and healthcare. In an effort to address these hardships, the US has adopted some measures. Among these is affirmative action. Essentially, affirmative action requires employers to give preferential treatment to candidates from minority communities with the goal of promoting diversity and increasing minority representation in the workforce. As the case of Schurr v. Resorts Int’l Hotel makes clear, the question of affirmative action in employment is highly complex. A review of the court’s decision in this case shows that it properly applied the law and it is therefore fairly easy to agree with the judgment.
The primary argument that the court made in its ruling is that affirmative action was essentially designed to tackle past and current discrimination. It argued further that since there was no evidence of past or existing discrimination, Resorts Int’l Hotel was not mandated to implement affirmative action. This argument is valid and in line with established jurisprudence. For example, in his text, Leonard (1990) holds that affirmative action is only necessary and legal when it is implemented as a remedy for discrimination and other injustices committed against minorities. Holzer and Neumark (2000) also held that affirmative action should be considered illegal when they do not address actual discrimination. They argue that across the US, more and more states are making it clear that race should never be considered in the hiring process. Therefore, in its ruling on the Schurr v. Resorts Int’l Hotel case, the court complied with the law and reflected the opinion of many Americans who feel that affirmative action can entrench discrimination against the majority population.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The provisions of Title VII help one to gain an even deeper understanding of the case. At its core, Title VII prohibits all forms of discrimination (Stainback & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2012). For example, it bars employers against discriminating against employees on the basis of their race. When it hired Ronald Boykin, the black employee, instead of Karl Schurr who happened to be white, Resorts Int’l Hotel essentially ran afoul of the Title VII. It discriminated against Schurr because of his race. As argued above, the fact that the discrimination was in the pursuit of affirmative action does not sanitize it. Therefore, the court demonstrated good judgment in its ruling.
The rights of employees offer another frame through which the judgment of the court can be evaluated. It is generally accepted that in the US, employees have the right to equal and fair treatment. In fact, the nation established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and tasked it with the mandate of enforcing fair employment standards and laws (EEOC, n.d.). There have been dozens of cases in which the EEOC has represented employees who alleged that they were discriminated against because of such factors as their race and gender. By failing to hire Schurr despite being highly qualified for the position, Resorts Intl’ Hotel basically violated his rights. The court recognized this violation when it ruled that the affirmative action program that the company had set up was unnecessary and discriminatory.
In its defense, Resorts Int’l Hotel argued that its affirmative action program was intended to promote diversity. This argument is flawed. According to the Harvard Law Review Association (1996), the mere fact that an affirmative action program helps to drive diversity is not sufficient justification. This organization bases this argument on the Taxman v Board of Education case where the court ruled that to be justified, affirmative action initiatives need to do more than simply boost diversity. This assertion highlights the wisdom of the court in the Schurr v Resorts Int’l Hotel. While the court did not necessarily lambast Resorts Intl’ Hotel for failing to base its affirmative action program on more solid ground, it can be argued that the court must have recognized that affirmative action is valid when it serves greater purposes. Therefore, this court’s ruling was based on solid rationale.
In closing, affirmative action continues to divide American opinion. There are those who feel that it is necessary to address historical injustices against minorities. Other Americans feel that since it offers preferential treatment, affirmative action is inherently unfair. The Schurr v. Resorts Int’l Hotel helps to highlight the complexity and controversy around affirmative action. By ruling that Resorts Int’l Hotel had blundered, the court hearing the case essentially established the supremacy of fairness in employment. This ruling should challenge employers to understand that affirmative action should never be pursued when it occurs at the expense of the rights of some employees.
References
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (n.d.). About EEOC. EEOC. Retrieved November 12, 2019 from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/
Harvard Law Review Association. (1996). Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII. Affirmative action. Third Circuit holds that diversity is not, in itself, a sufficient justification for granting preferences to minorities. Taxman v. Board of Education, 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996). Harvard Law Review, 110 (2), 5350-40.
Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (2000). Assessing affirmative action. Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (3), 483-568.
Leonard, J. S. (1990). The impact of affirmative action regulation and equal employment law on black employment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4 (4), 47-63.
Stainback, K., Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2012). Documenting desegregation: racial and gender segregation in private sector employment since the Civil Rights Act. New York City: Russell Sage Foundation.
