In the United States, Tittle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects the employees against discrimination or harassment, particularly from notions such as race, religion, sex, disability, nationality and genetic information (Brown, 2014). President Lyndon Johnson signed the Act on July 2, 1964. This however, was fueled by a series of events, including the attacks and injustice to African American people, widespread grassroots activities, the March on Washington, and President Kennedy assignation (Brown, 2014). This paper discusses employees' civil rights and the actions the employer should take to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act without violating employee rights for the smooth running of the activities in the organization.
The laws enacted aimed at promoting equality for all people in society, including the minority and women in the workplace (Brown, 2014). As a result, the efforts have led to a diverse labor force and better education for all (Lindsey et al., 2013). On the same hand, the law promoted inclusivity and diversity hence augmenting more opportunities for marginalized groups. The Civil Rights Act, often known as a comprehensive federal anti-discrimination law, applies to all private and public employers having at least a minimum number of employees of 15 despite the fact that some states have passed the law to businesses that are smaller and invaluable (Lindsey et al., 2013). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits extreme employment actions against workers. Employees have various rights that need to be protected to eradicate discrimination or harassment from their employers. According to Lindsey et al. (2013), employees have a right to receive equal pay for work done out. In addition, receiving accommodation is medication requirement, which has been emphasized to be kept on bar by the law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Confidentiality plays a key role in healthcare, therefore information concerning patients is not supposed to shared to a third party (Gostin, 1991). The employees are also entitled to participate in discrimination investigations and also report boisterous cases. In the United States, the body responsible for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws is known as Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, abbreviated as EEOC (Lindsey et al., 2013). EEOC's administrative process may solve the claims without going to court. The cases, however, must be filed within 180 days of the reported violation (Lindsey et al., 2013). The agency can sue the employer on behalf of the aggrieved employee if the case cannot be solved amicably (Lindsey et al., 2013). If the agency discovers that no violation was committed, it will drop the case, inform the employee of its decision, and drop the case (Lindsey et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the employee is allowed to bring a civil suit against the employer.
Types of Discrimination Claims
Disparate Treatment
With disparate treatment, Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act protects some characteristic even though there is unequal behavior towards someone. This however, affects employer's practice since international members are protected differently than other employees (Blumrosen, 1978). For instance, a case where the evidence provided by the employee is sufficient and substantiated, showing that the employer treated him/her differently from another employee could result to intentional discrimination. In that case, the manager has the burden of rebutting the allegation. The employer must come up with the nondiscriminatory reason that is legitimate for the organization's decision that led to the discriminatory claim or be subjected to tougher consequences (Blumrosen, 1978). The employees have the chance to show that the employer's reason is misleading and the actual reason was discrimination.
Disparate Impact
These claims focus on the extreme impact that an otherwise neutral policy has upon the protected class (Blumrosen, 1978). Disparate impact claims arise when the policies applied and neutrally worded result in adverse impacts on a protected group. Following the presentation of evidence to the court by the employees of a policy with a disparate impact on a protected class, the employer can defend the policy by presenting that the policy is job-related and essential in regular business operations (Blumrosen, 1978). Most importantly, the employer must ensure that there are discriminatory alternatives are formally neutral even though they have to be tough to the practices of employment.
In the case scenario-involving John, who is considered the best parcel delivery employee is responsible for distribution of parcels on the east side of the town on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. As his director, I will handle the matter responsibly and avoid violating his Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act. However, even though John was not religious for an extended period, he suddenly joined and devoted himself to a highly respected religious group. Certain days, he does not want to deliver the packages on the east side of the town since it is against his religious beliefs. His religious objections are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Werhane et al., 2008). His rejection to supply the packages on the east side of the town on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays imply that his religious beliefs will be violated. Yet, this can cause tremendous hardship on the company and the risk of losing the company's esteemed and valuable accounts. As his director manager and without violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, I would take the following actions. Since at the time John signed the contract with a company to transport the packages, he was not a religious person. Therefore, the contract is still binding to the initial agreement of distributing parcels on the east side of the town on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays hence he has no choice but to continue delivering the packages to avoid bleach of the contract. On the other hand, until his contract is made with the company, he should adhere to the company policies and regulations. In addition, to avoid losses and unnecessary expenses, the company continues to look for an employee to carry out the duties John is refusing to deliver. According to Werhane et al. (2008), Despite his religious beliefs, the contract agreement the employee and the employer has is binding even in the court of law; hence I will not have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protecting the rights of employees.
Another alternative action to take as the company owner is to sit down and discuss with John and the possible new arrangement on his delivery schedule. Instead of him delivering the packages on the east side of the town on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, which is against his religious beliefs, he should be transporting the posts on the east side of the town and give another employee the east side of the town. In so doing, I would save the company from losing valuable accounts and keeping our company's best delivery employee. Most importantly, I would not have discriminated against John based on religion, hence not violating employees' Civil Rights. In addition, John could change his working days to be on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays to avoid collision with his religious beliefs that do not allow working on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. In the same hand, I would relieve John off his duties to allow him adhere to his religious beliefs. In response, I will hire another employee to carry out his duties to save the company from losing the valuable clients on the east side of the town hence ensuring the survival of the company to continue giving the rest of the employee's employment opportunities to sustain their livelihood.
Discriminatory policies are permitted if the policy is explicitly satisfying "bona fide occupational qualification" (Blumrosen, 1978). The enforcement agencies and courts look at the nature of the job and the purpose of the employer's business and establish whether an employment decision affects the workers significantly is relevant and appropriate for the qualification of the worker for the job (Blumrosen, 1978). According to Blumrosen (1978), when hiring locker room attendants, the health spas may consider gender, and when hiring for leadership and management positions, the religious institutions may consider religion.
Discrimination Based on National Origin or Race
Occurs when company owners or managers do not promote or hire qualified employees based on the aspects of race. For instance, African Americans in 1960 faced high rates of unemployment that were twice those of White workers (Lindsey et al., 2013). This was mainly due to the absence of national laws to prohibit racial discrimination in employment. 100 years down the lane, employers in promotions, hiring, and compensation used to discriminate people based on race (Lindsey et al., 2013). However, following the introduction of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented employers from employment discrimination, there have been policies, rules and regulations that appear to be more neutral. In the recent past, over $100 million were recovered by the federal enforcement agencies on employees’ behalf because of harassment, discrimination in the workplace, and retaliation based on race (Lindsey et al., 2013). In any stage of the employment relationship, disparate impact to minority race exposes the employer to liability. Every level of employment discrimination exists from disciplinary action, hiring to compensation, termination, and advancement (Lindsey et al., 2013). To reduce liabilities, employers should monitor their human resources and practices policies and revisit employee advancement, disciplinary records, and compensation frequently to evaluate for potential disparate treatment of racial minorities (Lindsey et al., 2013). The law guides employers to ensure that their business operations are neutral without any form of prejudice or discrimination.
Religious Discrimination
Cases of discrimination based on religion have been on the rise for the last 20 years in the workplace; this is a disturbing trend (Lindsey et al., 2013). There are thousands of affected workers, which humanitarian agencies has recovered millions of dollars on behalf of them. It is approximated that the cases have escalated to 275% within a span of 5 years (Lindsey et al., 2013). The federal civil rights laws prevent discrimination in the workplace based on religion. The law protects employees from being forced to choose between their livelihoods and their beliefs (Lindsey et al., 2013). At the same time, every citizen in the United States has a right to worship and hold beliefs, and employers should respect the beliefs. However, some beliefs undermine the relationship between employees and employers since most employers are concerned about profits and often do not care about the means. They end up violating the employee’s right in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is against the harassment or discrimination (Lindsey et al., 2013). Therefore, employers should develop policies that consider human resource requirements to facilitate the smooth running of the business and avoid getting into trouble. If a complaining worker has reasonable and sincere religious beliefs that the employer uses the discriminate him/her, the employer is liable for religious discrimination. Therefore, once the employer is aware of the employee's religious beliefs, they must offer accommodations that are reasonable to the employee to ensure that the employee carries on necessary functions of the job despite the limitations of his/her religious beliefs. For instance, the employee may be allowed to adjust shifts or take unpaid leave to accommodate religious matters. In so doing, each party will be in a win-win situation, and everyone is happy in the long run (Lindsey et al., 2013). However, there are instances where religious accommodations are not needed if they result in an undue burden on the employer. A good example is that of John, which results in losing valuable accounts if he stops delivering packages on the east side of the town because of religious beliefs.
Gender Equality in the Workplace
Campaigns addressing gender equality in the workplace started as early as 1898 to promote “equal pay for equal work” for all gender (Lindsey et al., 2013). The first law enacted to address was in 1963, the Equal Pay Act that mandates both women and men doing the same job must earn equal pay, benefits, and incentives (Lindsey et al., 2013). Like other forms of discrimination at the workplace, the Civil Right Acts also prohibits discrimination based on gender in all employment phases. Therefore harassment and stereotyping by the employer based on sex is prohibited, and the employer is liable to compensation if found to violate the Act (Lindsey et al., 2013). This applies to all persons, as they must be treated equally in the workplace. According to research, over 30,000 cases are reported in America based on gender discrimination (Lindsey et al., 2013). The compensation of workers annually totals millions of dollars due to gender discrimination, especially a form of gender discrimination known as sexual harassment.
In conclusion, workplace discrimination, harassment, stereotyping, and prejudice is prevalent. It should however, be prohibited, and those employers found to violate Tittle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be held accountable. Employers should give specific accommodations to employees based on either their religion or belief system. Employers also must avoid all forms of discrimination in the workplace to safe millions of dollars as compensation and protect the company's reputation. However, if the accommodation provides an undue burden to the employer, it should not safeguard the business's smooth running. Therefore, employees should be protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, to promote maximum productivity.
References
Blumrosen, R. G. (1978). Wage discrimination, job segregation, and the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. U. Mich. JL Reform , 12 , 397. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2116&context=mjlr
Brown, P. (2014). The civil rights act of 1964. Wash. UL Rev. , 92 , 527. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6125&context=law_lawrevie w
Gostin, L. (1991). Genetic discrimination: the use of genetically based diagnostic and prognostic tests by employers and insurers. Am. JL & Med. , 17 , 109. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1763&context=facpub
Lindsey, A., King, E., McCausland, T., Jones, K., & Dunleavy, E. (2013). What we know and don't: Eradicating employment discrimination 50 years after the Civil Rights Act. Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 6 (4), 391-413. https://www.academia.edu/download/43641922/What_We_Know_and_Dont_Eradicating_Emplo20160311-4153-1alts9w.pdf
Werhane, P., Radin, T., & Bowie, E. (2008). Employment and Employee Rights . John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NRM_sp-PYVwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Employee+Rights&ots=gbNgcJt0_Q&sig=nJHe345eDdF3X8ZqoSabFCaaRZo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Employee%20Rights&f=false
