The federal that statute that applies to this case scenario is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This provision states that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire a person based on their gender ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Some of the elements covered under this statute include compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. In the presented case, the all-male Partnership Review Committee denied Anne an opportunity to be a partner even though she has exhibited excellent performance over the last ten years. This Committee prioritized a male employee whose performance was subpar compared to Anne. One of the privileges of employment is a job promotion, which Anne was qualified to enjoy based on the merit system.
Legal Issues
Anne may bring different claims in response to the decision that the Partnership Review Committee made. For example, she can challenge the employment’s terms and conditions that female associates should dress, talk, and act feminine ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Notably, the Committee does not hold similar standards for male partners. This issue can be considered as gender discrimination under Title VII. Anne can also address the seniority system in the accounting firm. When a seniority system is designed to give more responsibilities and roles to one gender over another, then the firm can be accused of gender discrimination ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). In the provided example, the Committee comprises of men only, meaning that it does not support the promotion of female employees. Besides, a male employee who had lower performance than Anne was promoted to the position of a partner.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Facts of the Case Concerning Law
Admittedly, there are different forms of gender discrimination in the case scenario. One of them is them is gender stereotyping. The Partnership Review Committee was made up of men since they believed that women might not have the ability to perform the duties of a partner. Stereotypes tend to overlook a person’s qualifications ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Take, for example, the Committee’s employee review, which failed to consider Anne’s performance over the last ten years. Title VII prohibits workplace decisions based on gender stereotypes ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). Such an issue can impose liability on the employer. Another problem in the case scenario is the unfavorable grooming code. Title VII asserts that an employer can exercise grooming codes as long as they deem it reasonable ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). However, in this case, there was no legitimate reason other than gender discrimination. The Committee wanted Anne to wear makeup and jewelry to appease to other partners. These items do not contribute to “business attire” or enhance Anne’s performance in the accounting firm. These guidelines emanated from the sexist view of the all-male Committee. For example, a gender-based policy that requires a female lobby attendant to wear short dresses and skirts to attract lewd comments and sexual advances from male clients is prohibited under the law ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). The same analysis can be applied to this case. Makeup, jewelry, and acting feminine are beauty aspects that are appealing to men mostly. As such, Anne has the right to sue the accounting firm for violating the provisions of Title VII.
Similar Case
A case similar to this current scenario was evident in Reno, Nevada. Harrah’s Casino instituted a policy that required the female employees should wear makeup, and the male employees should keep their hair and nails trimmed ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). However, one employee violated this policy and was fired. Darlene Jespersen argued that makeup was expensive, likened her to a hooker, and took time, thereby disadvantaging female employees ( Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019 ). The court ruled that the employer did not violate Title VII since there was no proof that applying makeup took a lot of time or was expensive. Unlike in the current case scenario, the employer imposed grooming codes on both men and women. Also, Jespersen’s decision to avoid wearing makeup did not show proof of gender discrimination.
Action Item Agenda
This firm can prevent future exposure to liability in different ways. One of them is reviewing workplace policies. The Committee should ensure that the rules that guide the promotion and terms of employment are well-defined for every employee before they can sign a contract. Another strategy is conducting periodic audits. For example, at the end of every six months, the employers can issue questionnaires to employees so that they can provide their feedback about the hiring and promotion policies.
References
Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L.P. (2019). Employment law for business (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
