Essay on Employment Discrimination

Employment law is composed of both federal and state laws to ensure that they provide legal protection to employees and employers. It is set up to ensure that legal guidelines and standards are met by preventing discrimination, promote health and safety, establish a minimum for economic support and to prevent work disputes between labor and management. While I was researching about employment law and reviewing the subtopics along with it the one that stuck out the most to me was employment discrimination. Employment discrimination is not talked about like it should be. Many people are affected by every day and not knowing what to do or who to contact is a bad thing. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly.

The Employment Discrimination Act is when everyone has the right to be treated fairly at work and to be free of discrimination on grounds of age, race, gender reassignment, disability, sexual orientation and religion beliefs. The Employment Discrimination Act refers to federal and state laws that prohibit employers from treating workers differently based on certain attributes unrelated to job performance. Discrimination by government employers violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Discrimination by private employers may conflict with any number of statutory protections, most notably, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the intensity of the administrative and state governments to separate. The Fifth Amendment has an express prerequisite that the central government does not deny people of 'life, freedom, or property' without fair treatment of the law. It additionally contains a certain assurance that every individual gets equivalent security of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment unequivocally denies states from damaging a person's privileges to fair treatment and equivalent security. In the business setting, the privilege of equivalent insurance restrains the intensity of the state and national governments to separate in their work rehearses by treating representatives, previous workers, or occupation candidates inconsistent as a result of enrollment in a gathering (for example, a race or sex). Fair treatment insurance necessitates that workers get a reasonable procedure before end if the end identifies with a freedom (for example, the privilege to free discourse) or property intrigue. State constitutions may likewise bear the cost of security from work segregation.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is the famous law that prohibits discrimination in employment based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of a person. This means that when hiring, firing, promoting, compensating, or in any other aspect of employment, these aspects cannot legally be considered. For instance, age separation is secured under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and segregation dependent on physical incapacity is secured under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Even though there are numerous laws with respect to employment discrimination, Title VII is broadly viewed as the most significant law on work separation. This is on the grounds that it put a formal and nitty gritty objections process into place and set unforgiving lawful punishments for business segregation.

Title VII applies to all business offices, including associations, and any business or work association that influences interstate trade and has at any rate 15 specialists or individuals. Keep in mind that 'influencing interstate trade' essentially implies that the business is associated with business exchange that in the end brings about the transportation of products or cash between states. There are a wide range of ways employment discrimination can happen, and in a wide range of zones of work.

In 1963 Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, which corrected the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Equal Pay Act denies businesses and associations from paying various wages dependent on the worker's sex. It doesn't deny other unfair procuring rehearses. It gives that if laborers perform equivalent work in occupations requiring 'equivalent expertise, exertion, and obligation . . . performed under comparative working conditions', the laborers must get equivalent pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to representatives occupied with some part of interstate trade or the entirety of a business' laborers if the venture connects all in all in a lot of interstate trade.

Both the objections procedure and the punishment procedure are administered by the U.S. Equivalent Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is a government regulatory office that explores, accommodates, and contests protests documented by existing and imminent representatives against businesses. Similarly, as with other regulatory organization procedures, gatherings can bid EEOC choices by bringing the case into the government court framework.

Discrimination clearly incorporates inside and out abuse of a representative, yet it can incorporate treating different workers or occupation candidate’s superior to a specific representative, as well. It can likewise happen when the work rehearses simply sustain past or progressing discrimination. If the EEOC finds out that an employer has violated Title VII, it can order penalties such as: back pay for the employee, payment of the employee's attorney's fees, reinstating the employee, retroactive granting of seniority for the employee, and retroactive pension benefits to the employee.

On November 6, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan Family Dollar is held accountable for disability discrimination because of failure to employ man who suffers from left-sided paralysis and wears a brace on his left arm. After being interviewed at the company's Detroit location, the applicant was offered the position but was told that he could not start work until a few weeks later. Despite his requests for a start date, he was never placed on the schedule and never performed any services for the company. During this same time, the company continued to hire other non-disabled individuals to work as customer service representatives at the same store. The Family Dollar has to payout $25,000. In my opinion, with this case it is very wrong to discriminate anyone by their appearance or disability. As, they stated that after his interview they hired non-disabled people, not even giving the man a chance. Family Dollar probably missed out on one of their best employees by discriminating him. This is a prime example on why you do not judge others.

The former operators of the La Cantera Resort and Spa in San Antonio, Texas have agreed to pay $2,625,000 to settle a national origin discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC's lawsuit alleged that the operators of the La Cantera Resort and Spa in San Antonio violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by subjecting Hispanic banquet staff to a hostile work environment based on their national origin and by retaliating against workers who opposed a restrictive language policy.

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, after assuming control of the resort, La Cantera's new managers sub­jected at least 25 Hispanic banquet employees to verbal abuse and mistreatment because of their national origin. In describing the mistreatment, the EEOC's complaint alleged that the managers had implemented and harshly enforced a policy forbidding banquet staff from speaking Spanish at anytime and anywhere in the resort. One of the managers allegedly referred to Spanish as 'a foul language' and used derogatory terms when referring to Hispanics. The lawsuit alleged that when banquet employees raised concerns about these practices, the employer retaliated against some by demoting and firing them and replacing them with non-Hispanic employees. The EEOC claimed that as a direct result of the discrimination and retaliation, the formerly all-Hispanic senior management group in the banquet department was reduced to having no Hispanic managers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin, including harassment and retaliation, forbids such alleged conduct. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process.

There have been many discrimination cases and here is a list below of some of the cases that have happened:

• Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). In this case, the Supreme Court decided that certain education requirements and intelligence tests used as conditions of employment acted to exclude African American job applicants, did not relate to job performance, and were prohibited.
• Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974). The Supreme Court found that Ohio public school mandatory maternity leave rules for pregnant teachers violate constitutional guarantees of due process.
• Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). The Court held that a claim of 'hostile environment' sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that may be brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987). The Court decided that a county transportation agency appropriately considered an employee's sex as one factor in determining whether she should be promoted.
• Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes is recognized as unlawful sexual discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Burlington Industries, Inc. Ellerth (1998). In this case the Court held that an employee who refuses unwelcome and threatening sexual advances of a supervisor (but suffers no real job consequences) may recover against the employer without showing the employer is at fault for the supervisor's actions.
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998). The Court decided that an employer may be liable for sexual discrimination caused by a supervisor, but liability depends on the reasonableness of the employer's conduct, as well as the reasonableness of the plaintiff victim's conduct.
• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. (1998). In this case, the Court held that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment can form the basis for a valid claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015). The Court ruled that a job applicant does not have to explicitly request an accommodation to obtain protection from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in hiring.

There are federal laws that everybody must pursue and state and nearby enemy of discrimination laws that businesses must pursue who are situated in their general vicinity. It's important that the rundown beneath isn't thorough and because something isn't on this rundown doesn't mean it's not secured by the law. For example, there is no government law that denies oppression individuals who are overweight (except if that weight considers an inability). However, Michigan and six different urban communities have such laws on the books. In 49 states, segregation dependent on weight isn't illicit. This is changing as people in general turns out to be more fixed on all parts of assorted variety.

Extra federal laws may exist that address work discrimination. At the point where you consider business discrimination laws, the more stringent standard, either state or Federal, is commonly applied in employment discrimination lawsuits.

Business, regardless of how little, should know about the employment discrimination laws. Employing chiefs and HR experts, specifically, should observe. Discrimination in numerous territories identified with business is unlawful. Businesses must take cautious measures to guarantee that choices they make in any part of work are legitimate, moral, and upheld by documentation of the realities and capabilities.

Work discrimination laws are clear in expressing that business separation is unsuitable and unlawful. Business can’t lawfully oppress individuals dependent on age, race, sexual orientation, religion, pregnancy, spot of starting point, and inability. How those laws are applied fluctuate extraordinarily. However, employers should be mindful of a person’s performance and skills and not on their personal aspects of the employees’ life.