Johnson v. Transportation Agency Case Study

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
Presentation of the Problem and Research Questions
Literature Review
Methodology
Findings and Discussions
EEOC Interpretation of Congressional Intent
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Reverse discrimination is a term used to refer to a type of discrimination where members of the historically advantaged groups or majority groups are discriminated against based on their age, gender, race and other aspects. Usually, such claims arise in the fields of education and employment. The term is also used to refer to affirmative action factors meant to promote or advance minorities by enhancing inequality in society. The majority of the courts in the United States are struggling with cases that are considered to be reversed discrimination. According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is clearly stated that employers should never discriminate against their workers based on national origin, religion, gender, sex or sex regardless of the type of victim in question. Similarly, Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 claims that employers should not adopt policies or programs that adversely affect members of the protected class. However, most cases have misinterpreted the act, with most of the plaintiffs in such cases being males and Caucasians.

Presentation of the Problem and Research Questions

In the case under discussion, the Santa Clara County Transport Agency had adopted an affirmative action plan to promote women and minorities, thus providing inter alia. According to the company, their plan aimed at achieving statistical representation in the promotion and hiring of women and minorities in areas where they were underrepresented (Fredman, 2017). The company had not yet established a certain number of women and minority groups positions but only claimed that they would develop short-range goals that would be adjusted annually. Upon announcing a vacancy for the road dispatcher position, all 238 positions were held by a woman (Newton, 2018). Therefore, upon interviews, Pau Johnson was deemed as the best-qualified applicant. Still, the decision could not be upheld as the affirmative-action officer claimed that a woman would be appointed in his position instead. Johnson filed a case claiming sex discrimination. The district court claimed that gender was a factor of consideration in the promotion quest (Yu, 2018). Similarly, in a case involving weber and steelworkers, the affirmative action of reversed discrimination is justified as it helps to correct a manifestation of imbalance in the employment field.

The paper aims to answer the key research questions: Why should the court system advocate for the affirmative action of the reversed discrimination? and what have been the respective roles of affirmative action and federal anti-discrimination law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The thesis for the paper is on analyzing all the critical aspects in the affirmative action of reversed discrimination, thereby explaining the impacts of discrimination based on age, sex and gender on the workplace demographics.

Literature Review

According to an article composed by Newton (2018), many opponents have argued that most companies face reduced productivity due to hiring lower quality females compared o their male counterparts who possess relevant skills. According to the author, the EEOC has made several efforts to launch new labour pools that most businesses have contrived to ignore, making it difficult to break the traditional barriers linked to labor mobility (Newton, 2018). Affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws have been thought to pressure firms that intend to promote or hire a few women or minority classes into their organizations. However, with the enforcement of Title VII and executive order 11246, there has been reduced female and minority representation variance.

According to Fredman, 2017, the Courts enforcement of Title VII has had significant impacts on the scope of occupational status and employment for the blacks (Fredman, 2017). Similarly, the author claims that the Civil Rights act of 1964 should be given some credit for its large contribution and for championing equal opportunities for women and minorities in society. Similarly, the author affirms that the EEOC, a branch tasked to oversee the enforcement of Title VII, has helped private litigants rather than provide relief from acts of discrimination (Newton, 2018). According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USCS 2000e et seq, it is evident that the Court lacks a rule on the violation of the reversed discrimination act, and any case filed by the plaintiff can be upheld if the company fails to articulate the non-discriminatory rationale for their decisions to hire or promote workers.

Methodology

This case study incorporated various qualitative methodology paradigm that entailed critical concepts to address the reversed discrimination concept. The study involved collecting various sources of evidence through evident quantitative means such as using key research methods; among them were interviews, observations, surveys, and secondary and primary sources such as newspaper articles and journals.

Findings and Discussions

The majority of the courts in the United States are struggling with cases that are considered to be reversed discrimination. According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is clearly stated that employers should never discriminate against their workers based on national origin, religion, gender, sex or sex regardless of the type of victim in question (Newton, 2018). Similarly, Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 claims that employers should not adopt policies or programs that adversely affect members of the protected class (Fredman, 2017). However, most cases have misinterpreted the act, with most of the plaintiffs in such cases being males and Caucasians. The EEOC has made several efforts to launch new labour pools, which most businesses have contrived to ignore, making it difficult to break the traditional barriers linked to labor mobility. Affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws have been thought to pressure firms that intend to promote or hire a few women or minority classes into their organizations (Wojtyla, 2019). However, with the enforcement of Title VII and executive order 11246, there has been reduced female and minority representation variance.

EEOC Interpretation of Congressional Intent

According to the discourse presented by the EEOC, it is clear that there was a need to clarify the affirmative action articulated in Title VII. The EEOC, therefore, went ahead to publish a set of guidelines in 1979 that stipulated that the Congress aimed at promoting voluntary action in a statement that read, Congress did not intend to expose those who comply with the Act to charges that they are violating the very statute they are seeking to implement (Fredman, 2017). According to the EEOC guidelines, employees are advised to implement a self-analysis before adopting a reversed discrimination act in their organization. This will allow them to take care of past employment practices resulting from discrimination acts within their institution (Wojtyla, 2019). Therefore, employers need to ensure that their voluntary affirmative actions align with the EEOCS guidelines to achieve efficient protection from the Title VII suit.

Conclusion

In summary, the paper has demonstrated that affirmative action and federal anti-discrimination law plays a vital role in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a review, employers should never discriminate against their workers based on national origin, religion, gender, sex or sex regardless of the type of victim in question. Similarly, Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 claims that employers should not adopt policies or programs that adversely affect members of the protected class. In future research, there is a need for efforts by the EEOC to launch new pools of labor which most businesses have to adopt, thus making it easier for breaking the traditional barriers linked to labor mobility.

References

Fredman, S. (2017). Reversing discrimination. In Global Minority Rights (pp. 307-332). Routledge. Web.

Newton, L. H. (2018). Reverse discrimination as unjustified (pp. 62-65). Routledge. Web.

WojtyBa, N. (2019). Reverse Discrimination-How Fundamental Rights Might be Changed without Notice.Law and Administration in Post-Soviet Europe, 6(1), 84-92. Web.

Yu, H. H. (2018). Gender and public agency hiring: An exploratory analysis of recruitment practices in federal law enforcement. Public Personnel Management, 47(3), 247-264.

Click Here To Order Now!