EEOC and Affirmative Action in the Workplace

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Sally’s Case with the MM Company
Sally’s Claim Based on the Facts Set Forth
The Risk of MM from Sally’s Claims
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The modern day workplace is characterized by many employee related challenges. These challenges come in form of discrimination based on gender, race, color, and age. These challenges usually pose a threat to the employees and the potential employees who are from the minority background.

Minorities are the individuals from a certain background who bear a certain common attribute and are considered the lesser of the dominant individuals. Minorities include females in cases of a male dominated environment, blacks in cases of white dominated environment or even the physically disabled.

Laws have been enacted seeking to give equal opportunities to the minority and therefore ensure that they are treated in a fair and just manner.

This came as a result of historical injustices towards these groups of people. The government has enacted legislations that compel companies to strictly adhere to such rules as affirmative action that seeks to incorporate a certain percentage of minorities in the work environment (Bernett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009).

Individuals who are part of the minority and feel discriminated more so when looking for employments, seeking promotions, or in cases of demotion can file a law suit that seeks a legal redress from the person practicing the discrimination (Dew, 1997). Once the law suit has been completed, the court of law may offer various remedies ranging from awarding damages to ordering specific action on the defendants.

This essay will analyze the case of Sally and MM Company that fired her due to failure to attend to her assigned duty. The paper will conclude with recommendations to the HR manager on the best course of action that could be taken to avoid the law suit that was filed against the company.

Sally’s Case with the MM Company

Sally is an African-American lady who worked for Metal Manufacturer (MM) through a third party vendor. The environment at MM Company is rather different from a typical working environment and this poses a lot of Challenges to the employees of the nature of Sally. This is because first, the place is dominated by male employees.

This poses as challenge to Sally since she is a female. The problem in this type of environment is that she may suffer such undesirable acts as sexual harassment by the male colleagues. The fact that she is also a female exposes her to the danger of gender discrimination and being overlooked by the male colleagues.

The second problem in this work environment is that Sally is an African-American lady. This means that she is from a minority and since she is black, she suffers the risk of being racially abused. Majority of the employees at Metal manufacturing Company are Caucasian males. This means that her being a black person is considered as a minority in that environment.

When there is negligence on her part that causes equipment damage and a 3 hour shutdown of operations, she is fired. Her firing raises some questions as to the legality of the process.

First it is noted that there were various indicators of discrimination against her only that there was no opportune excuse for her to be fired. The text reveals that the environment dominated by male employees presented a lot of challenges to her that she tried to deal with and continue with her work normally.

Sally’s Claim Based on the Facts Set Forth

The laws that have been enacted to enforce equal opportunity in the workplace state that no individual should be discriminated on reasons of gender, race, color etc (Bernett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009). This seems the first claim that Sally could base on her case.

When an opportunity arose in the Company where Sally was working, she applied for it. However she was not granted since it was explained to her by the HR manager that the position was reserved for internal employees only. This seems untrue since a worker would be interested in a new position in the current work place if the position is of promotional nature or offers better terms such as higher remuneration.

This was is not the case with this position since it was an entry level position. An entry level position is the position that is advertised by an organization and seeks to bring individuals who have not worked for the organization before.

Sally did right in applying for the position and since she worked for a third party vendor with the company for five years, she is seemingly the best positioned for the job. However, the job is given to someone else and Sally protests to the manager who assurers her that her claims are not true.

This could have triggered the firing of Sally since in the end the person who was hired was not a current employee. Besides, the company employed predominantly males of Caucasian origin. Sally could therefore succeed in her claim towards an unjustly lost position. This could be a strong case in her law suit since she can expose the discrimination that goes on in the Company.

The other claim that she could bring on this case is the fact that she got fired for negligence. After working in one company for such a long time as five years, an employee is considered competent and one act of negligence should not result in a termination. There are various punishments that precede firing.

Termination is considered the last repercussion that an employee should face when he/ she has committed a work related act of wrongdoing or omission. The first instance when she fails at her duty should probably result in verbal reprimand or a letter of warning. However, the express firing by the manager without discussing the possible triggers of the negligence is both unfair and illegal.

Five years is a long time that an individual can use to prove her competency and therefore a firing after one act of negligence is unjustifiable. Sally can easily succeed in convincing the court of law that her act of negligence is not the source of her firing but rather the Company’s culture of hiring males and the discriminatory practices in the company could be the real cause.

The Risk of MM from Sally’s Claims

There is a high degree of assurance that Sally could be successful in her claims. As such Metal Manufacturer faces some risks if the case is decided in Sally’s favor. First the court could order for the position to be reopened. This means that the company would be forced to declare the position vacant and hire Sally on the ground of affirmative action.

The US department of Labor has spelt out regulations that seek to offer equal opportunity to all citizens irrespective of their color, race, religion, and sex (Bernett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009). If Sally succeeds in her claim the company would be forced to reinstate her either to the position that she held when she got fired or offer her the position that she had applied for and had been denied.

The other risk that the company faces is the risk of losing on financial damages if the court awards Sally damages. She has the option of filing a lawsuit in which she could specifically file for the lost wages, the emotional distress caused, and the discriminatory distress caused as well.

This would cost the company huge sums of money that were not initially planned for. The court could also fine the company for punitive measures to set an example to other companies who practice discrimination such as is seen in Metal Manufacturing Company.

Punitive damages are usually high and a company’s cash flows could be potentially affected in a negative way. This company therefore suffers these risks and unless a strong defense is put on the case, there is a great possibility that the damages will be awarded by the court.

Failure to honor the court’s ruling could result to further legal repercussions that could even lead to imprisonment of some managers. The court could also institute an affirmative action on future employment by the company.

The other risk that the company suffers is the risk of a complete overhaul of their hiring policies. The court of law could order an investigation into the whole Human resource practices at Metal Manufacturer.

This could potentially expose the malpractices that have been going on in the company in the human resource department. This could damage the corporate image of the company which means a negative impact on the company as a brand.

The above mentioned case could however be avoided by the management of Metal Manufacturing Company if some certain procedures were followed. The HR manager should have provided a job description that does not discriminate against any form of minority and yet ensure that sally does not qualify for the position.

This could be advertised as a position in the company without specifying whether it was an entry point or a current employee eligible position. The position would be advertised and the requirements for the same would be put in such a way that an employee such as sally would not qualify. This could however be interpreted as malice and if discovered could lead to more serious repercussions.

The other important action that the HR could have taken is launching an investigation to Sally’s claims that she was denied the position due to her gender and race. This should have been considered a serious human resource matter and an investigation into the same would possibly satisfy Sally that she was not denied the position unjustifiably.

During the investigation, the HR could have ensured that all the qualifications of the person who was hired more so those that Sally does not possess are brought to light. This would prove to her the hiring was based on merit and no such bias as claimed was entertained.

If the law suit continued, the company has a slight ray of hope where it could be proved to the court of law that the firing was not retaliation on her criticism of the hiring. The only meaningful defense that the company can put forward is to express the sensitivity of the cooling plant and the air condition and also present to the court the damage that was caused by her negligence.

A clear and concise job description could be presented to the court indicating that the employee clearly understood her roles and that there were no justifiable reasons as to why she did not perform them.

Clear HR guidelines that spell out the various punitive options that are administered in different cases of employee misconduct could be helpful. Further, if it could be proved that such an offence amounted to firing and that the employee fully understood the punitive measures would greatly help in the company’s defense.

The company could also justify their decision to fire her if they can have prove of prior negligence. If such cases of negligence had been caused by the employee and subsequent warnings given to her, it would be easy for the court to rule that the termination was in order.

This is because an employee is required to exercise the duty of care and diligence on the job he/ she is assigned to do. Failure to do this would prove the management that the employee lacks the necessary competence, skills and knowledge to perform the assigned job and this can justify termination.

The management of Metal Manufacturing ought to have handled the case of Sally in a different manner before terminating her. First, if she had done similar errors previously during her five year tenure at the company the management ought to have served her with due warnings that could expressly state to her that such negligent behaviors were unacceptable.

This means that by the time she was getting fired, she would have clearly known that it is in the best interest of the company and not a mere bias or discrimination.

The management could also have sourced for a lady to replace her after she had been terminated and also if possible an African-American. This would clearly put it to her that the reason of her termination was neither her sex nor her race. In doing this, her case on minority discrimination would not have a strong convincing power to the court than it would if the company not hired a lady to replace her.

Conclusion

It is clear that Sally has a strong case against the company and that the company may fail to put a strong defense on the case. Due to her gender and race, it can be clearly established that she comes from a minority group. As such the company illegally terminated her as an employee seemingly due to their gender and their racial discrimination.

Companies should learn not only to understand the various legislations that govern the minority rights such as the affirmative action, but also should engage in hiring processes that are termed as just and equitable so as to abide by these laws.

As such, Metal Manufacturer ought to overhaul their hiring policies and accommodate a more diverse group of employees. This does not only improve their effectiveness through diversity but also ensures that the opportunities available in the employment field are just and equitable.

The success of the above case in favor of Sally would set an example to similar companies which do not observe the rule of affirmative action and incorporate the minority when hiring.

References

Bernett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2009). Employment Law for Business. Columbus: McGraw Hill.

Dew, J. R. (1997). Empowerment and Democracy in the Workplace. Westport: Quorum Books.

Click Here To Order Now!