HRM textbook

CHAPTER 2 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND THE LAW 65
KEY TERMS
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, 32
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), 32
affirmative action, 33
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP), 33
Equal Pay Act of 1963, 33
Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA), 33
Vocational Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 33
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 34
uniform guidelines, 34
protected class, 34
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA 1991), 35
mixed motive case, 36
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 36
qualified individuals, 37
sexual harassment, 39
Federal Violence Against Women Act
of 1994, 40
adverse impact, 44
disparate rejection rates, 44
4/5ths rule, 44
restricted policy, 45
bona fide occupational qualification
(BFOQ), 46
alternative dispute resolution or ADR
program, 54
diversity, 55
discrimination, 55
gender-role stereotypes, 55
managing diversity, 56
good faith effort strategy, 59
reverse discrimination, 60
ENDNOTES
1. Kevin McGowan, Court Approves $175
Million Settlement of Novartis Sales Reps
and Sex Bias Claims, BNA Bulletin to
Management, November 30, 2010, p. 377.
2. Plaintiffs still bring equal employment
claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
For example, in 2008 the U.S. Supreme
Court held that the act prohibits retaliation
against someone who complains of
discrimination against others when contract
rights (in this case, an employment
agreement) are at stake. Charles Louderback,
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Expand Employees Ability to Bring
Retaliation Claims, Compensation &
Benefits Review, September/October
2008, p. 52.
3. Based on or quoted from Principles of
Employment Discrimination Law, International
Association of Official Human
Rights Agencies, Washington, DC. See
also Bruce Feldacker, Labor Guide to
Labor Law (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2000); EEOC Attorneys
Highlight How Employers Can Better
Their Nondiscrimination Practices,
BNA Bulletin to Management, July 20,
2008, p. 233; and www.eeoc.gov, accessed
June 27, 2009. Employment discrimination
law is a changing field, and the
appropriateness of the rules, guidelines,
and conclusions in this chapter and book
may also be affected by factors unique to
the employer s operation. They should be
reviewed by the employer s attorney
before implementation.
4. Individuals may file under the Equal
Employment Act of 1972.
5. The Employer Should Validate Hiring
Tests to Withstand EEOC Scrutiny, Officials
Advise, BNA Bulletin to Management,
April 1, 2008, p. 107.
6. Restructured, Beefed Up OFCCP May
Shift Policy Emphasis, Attorney Says,
BNA Bulletin to Management, August 18,
2009, p. 257.
7. High Court: ADEA Does Not Protect
Younger Workers Treated Worse Than
Their Elders, BNA Bulletin to Management
55, no. 10 (March 4, 2004),
pp. 73 80. See also D. Aaron Lacy, You Are
Not Quite as Old as You Think: Making
the Case for Reverse Age Discrimination
Under the ADEA, Berkeley Journal of
Employment and Labor Law 26, no. 2
(2005), pp. 363 403; Nancy Ursel and
Marjorie Armstrong-Stassen, How Age
Discrimination in Employment Affects
Stockholders, Journal of Labor Research
17, no. 1 (Winter 2006), pp. 89 99; and,
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.
cfm, accessed October 3, 2011.
8. Google Exec Can Pursue Claim, BNA
Bulletin to Management, October 20,
2007, p. 342; Fired Google Manager May
Proceed with Age Bias Suit, California
Justices Rule, BNA Bulletin to Management,
August 10, 2010, p. 249.
9. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/
adea.cfm, accessed October 3, 2011.
10. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in California
Federal Savings and Loan Association
v. Guerra that if an employer offers no
disability leave to any of its employees,
it can (but need not) grant pregnancy
leave to a woman disabled for pregnancy,
childbirth, or a related medical condition.
11. John Kohl, Milton Mayfield, and Jacqueline
Mayfield, Recent Trends in Pregnancy
Discrimination Law, Business Horizons 48,
no. 5 (September 2005), pp. 421 429, and
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforc
ement/pregnancy.cfm, accessed October 3,
2011.
12. Nancy Woodward, Pregnancy Discrimination
Grows, HR Magazine, July 2005, p. 79.
13. Pregnancy Claims Rising; Consistent
Procedures Paramount, BNA Bulletin
to Management, November 23, 2010,
p. 375.
14. www.uniformguidelines.com/
uniformguidelines.html, accessed
November 23, 2007.
15. Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 3FEP
cases 175.
16. This is applicable only to Title VII and
CRA 91; other statutes require intent.
17. James Ledvinka, Federal Regulation of
Personnel and Human Resources Management
(Boston: Kent, 1982), p. 41.
18. Bruce Feldacker, Labor Guide to Labor
Law (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2000), p. 513.
19. The Eleventh Circuit Explains Disparate
Impact, Disparate Treatment, BNA Fair
Employment Practices, August 17, 2000,
p. 102. See also Kenneth York, Disparate
Results in Adverse Impact Tests: The 4/5ths
Rule and the Chi Square Test, Public
Personnel Management 31, no. 2 (Summer
2002), pp. 253 262; and Burden of
Proof Under the Employment Non-
Discrimination Act, http://www.civilrights.
org/lgbt/enda/burden-of-proof.html,
accessed August 8, 2011.
20. We ll see that the process of filing a discrimination
charge goes something like
this: The plaintiff (say, a rejected applicant)
demonstrates that an employment
practice (such as a test) has a disparate (or
adverse ) impact on a particular group.
Disparate impact means that an employer
engages in an employment practice or
policy that has a greater adverse impact
[effect] on the members of a protected
group under Title VII than on other
employees, regardless of intent. (Requiring
a college degree for a job would have
an adverse impact on some minority
groups, for instance.) Disparate impact
claims do not require proof of discriminatory
intent. Instead, the plaintiff s burden