Human resource management as a field is vastly governed and defined by a broad array of set of laws and regulations. Employment and other HR practices are expected to adhere to various legislative obligations applicable to legal environment an organization runs its business. In the United States, for example, employment regulations govern all aspects of HRM including recruitment and selection, compensation, training and development, termination, and employee relations among several others. Therefore, HR experts and scholars maintain that organizations must stay informed about current legislation to make sure they consistently observe their provisions and also to avoid serious implications of noncompliance. The most significant piece of federal regulation that governs every functional area of HRM is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Act is a landmark piece of legislation covering the entire scope of employment. The law outlaws all major forms of discrimination in employment practices. Under VII, this remarkable legal instrument prohibits employers from discriminating against race, gender, disability, pregnancy, sexual orientation, national background, color, religion, age and more ( Aiken, Salmon, & Hanges, 2013) . The main aim of the anti-discrimination law (Title VII) is to ensure individuals are given equal opportunities in the workplace regardless of their demographic attributes. Therefore, no person who has applied for a job or promotion in an organization is denied the chance because they are characterized by certain qualities. Possible areas of violation of Title VII include training, hiring, promotion, termination, assigning responsibilities, instilling discipline, assessing employee performance, or providing compensation and benefits. In other words, the Act protects applicants and current employees.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The legislation originated from a long era of escalating racial oppression and occupational segregation. In this era, one demographic group, white men, was overrepresented in the employment sector and at the same time, minority groups underrepresented in different types of jobs. In the subsequent era – the Civil Rights Era – some leaders in the minority groups demanded rights and equal opportunities in various areas including employment ( Aiken, Salmon, & Hanges, 2013) . Legislative response to heed to the intensifying political demands of these minority groups, especially African Americans was imperative. A bill would later be introduced in both houses by Emanuel Celler that would be enacted into law ( Aiken, Salmon, & Hanges, 2013) . Since its passage, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 transformed representation of employees in both the private and public employment sectors.
The law incorporates three main sensitive areas that an employer must observe. They include equal opportunity, harassment, and affirmative action. Generally, these are principles that impact almost all HRM practices. The legislation contains certain statutory languages that influence HR actions and decisions an organization takes. It is also important to point out that discrimination in employment activities and other HR functions may take many forms. Therefore, discriminatory HR practices, as defined by the legislation, can be grouped under one of four categories - disparate treatment, disparate impact, harassment, and retaliation.
One, disparate treatment involves treating an employee unlawfully. It involves an employer (or prospect hirer) deliberately treating an individual differently because of the characteristics that define the protected class ( Zafar, Valera, Gomez Rodriguez, & Gummadi, 2017) . If a person makes a disparate claim, they allege that they were treated in a certain way that was inconsistent with other similarly situated employees and also different based on the protected qualities ( Zafar, Valera, Gomez Rodriguez, & Gummadi, 2017) . For example, not hiring a qualified person simply because they are black is blatant and intentional discrimination. The federal government directs that an employee who believes they are a victim of disparate treatment should make a preliminary case proving that they belong to a protected class, qualified for the opportunity and was rejected.
The second category is known as disparate impact. It is employment discrimination arising from a disproportionately adverse effect of HR practices and policies on members of the protected groups. It occurs when employers rely on HR practices, rules, employment systems, and policies that appear neutral but unintentionally result in discrimination ( Skeem & Lowenkamp, 2016) . An excellent example to illustrate this is the use of strength assessment tests when hiring. The test would screen out a significant number of female applicants compared to their male counterparts for a position considering the fact that men are physically stronger than women. According to Skeem and Lowenkamp (2016), disparate impact is a complicated legal phenomenon. However, the authors apprise that a person believed to be a victim of disparate impact must prove that the system an employer uses is disproportionately biased against the protected class. In their part, an employer should confirm that the criteria used is job-related and not discriminatory.
The law refers to the third category as harassment. Title VII also outlaws all forms of harassment based on certain protected characteristics. The most probable type of harassment familiar to many is sexual harassment in the workplace. However, even though the term “harassment” may not appear anywhere in the Act, it covers a diverse range of unwanted treatments. Essentially, like Branch, Ramsay, and Barker (2013) demonstrate, harassment involves unwelcome behaviors and treatment influenced by one’s race, age, religion, sexual orientation, and more. Typical components of discriminatory harassment include bullying, assault, intimidation, offensive jokes, and sexual harassment. Discriminatory harassment is broad and unlike the other four categories, its provisions keep changing depending on legal precedents. Therefore, organizations are advised to monitor, update, and revive their harassment policies to reflect the prevailing legal conditions.
The fourth category is known as retaliation. The legislation also forbids an employer to retaliate against an employee who makes a complaint about discrimination or harassment. It can happen when an employer takes an unreasonable punitive action against a worker for filing a harassment or discrimination case against the organization. According to William Gould (2014), the law provides measures blocking an employer from counterattacking or punishing an employee for complaining, either internally or to employment authorities, taking part in proceedings or investigation, taking a stand against discrimination or harassment practices in an organization or engaging in legally protected activity. Retaliatory acts can take many forms, including but not limited to salary deduction, demotion, discipline, dismissal, job shift, or denial of promotion. Employer retaliation is complex as it can sometimes be subtle or not direct (Gould, 2014). Most of the times, it is difficult to tell whether an employer is retaliatory. For instance, if a worker files a harassment complaint to the management against a supervisor and his demeanor and attitude changes, it does not automatically qualify to be retaliation as long as the supervisor remains professional.
The legislation is administered and enforced by an independent government agency. The government enforces Title VII of the Act through a federal agency known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The origin of the agency dates back to 1961 when an executive order was signed by President J.F. Kennedy. The order expected federal government contractors to ensure applicants of various employment opportunities are treated fairly regardless of their backgrounds. ( Warber, Ouyang, & Waterman, 2018) . The executive order created an agency known as the Committee on Equal Opportunity which came to be the predecessor of the EEOC. An in-depth by Sullivan (2013) points out that the EEOC commission was established in 1965 with its mandates stipulated, among other acts, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As such, the federal agency investigates workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation cases.
The EEOC also outlines the procedure for registering a workplace discrimination case. As the first step in enforcing the legislation, employees who believe are victims of harassment or discriminatory practices and behaviors in the workplace should first file a complaint with the agency (Sullivan, 2013). Having done so, the employee is also at liberty to pursue legal action by filing a legal lawsuit against the employer. Here, the employee argues his/her case by providing facts and proving they belong to the protected class. In the event an employer is found guilty of violating Title VII, the victim is entitled to back pay, punitive damages, compensatory damages as remedies as stipulated under Title VII. However, it is important to note that legislation determines the amount of damages based on the size of the accused employer. On the other hand, an employer has a chance to argue their case by proving that their actions were purely for job purposes and not discriminatory.
The legislation applies to organizations both in the private and public sectors. As the discussion demonstrates, Title VII promotes equality and discourages all forms of harassment in the workplace. Essentially, the law protects employees from possible exploitation or unlawful treatments from an employer. Noncompliance with the provisions of the Act may result in serious legal or financial implication for an organization. Such consequences may include heavy fines, imprisonment or executives and business owners, or complete closure of business. Therefore, to avoid as the adverse effects, employers must take into account the requirements of the regulation and develop comprehensive HR policies and practices that abide by those obligations. They must ensure that They treat people differently because of their diverse backgrounds.
References
Aiken, J. R., Salmon, E. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2013). The origins and legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Journal of Business and Psychology , 28 (4), 383-399.
Branch, S., Ramsay, S., & Barker, M. (2013). Workplace bullying, mobbing and general harassment: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews , 15 (3), 280-299.
Gould IV, W. B. (2014). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act at Fifty: Ruminations on past, present, and future. Santa Clara L. Rev. , 54 , 369.
Skeem, J. L., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2016). Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology , 54 (4), 680-712.
Sullivan, P. M. (2013). EEOC best practices support best practices for spirit and religion at work. In Handbook of Faith and Spirituality in the Workplace (pp. 19-31). Springer, New York, NY.
Warber, A. L., Ouyang, Y., & Waterman, R. W. (2018). Landmark Executive Orders: Presidential Leadership Through Unilateral Action. Presidential Studies Quarterly , 48 (1), 110-126.
Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2017, April). Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web (pp. 1171-1180).
