Download EEO Laws and Sexual Harassment: An Overview and more Slides Human Resource Management in PDF only on Docsity!

EEO

Why Worry?

• Motherhood Maternity. $375,000. Pregnancy (refused to hire pregnant applicants).
• GLC Restaurants (McDonald’s franchise). $550,000. Sexual harassment (middle-aged male manager, teenaged female employees, as young as 14).
• AT & T. $756,000. Two employees. Religion (Jehovah’s Witnesses).
• Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association. $6.2 million. Race /

national origin.

• Walgreen’s. $24 million. Racial discrimination in management hiring.

Executive Order 11246

• This order forbids employment discrimination by federal government contractors and subcontractors (doing at least $10,000 business in a year)
• Requires that Compliance Reports be filed annually
• Further, it calls for affirmative action plans by contractors
• Who is a government contractor?
  • Well, they employ about 22% of the workforce
  • Any bank that is a depository for federal funds or that issues and cashes U.S. Savings Bonds is a federal contractor
  • Incidentally, EO 11246 is enforced by a Department of Labor agency, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance programs (OFCCP)

Civil Rights Act (1991)

• Clean-up law
• Provisions:
  • Compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination
  • Legal fees
  • Jury trials
  • Mixed motive cases
  • The burden of proof in a disparate impact case has moved from the plaintiff (the person suing) to the defendant (the person being sued)
  • Race norming is forbidden
  • Finally, the Act extends U.S. EEO law to protects American citizens working in foreign countries for American companies

EEO Enforcement

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC)

• Federal Gov’t contractors:

– Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

(part of Department of Labor)

• State & local gov’ts:

– Employment Litigation Section, U.S. Department

of Justice

Source: Shuit (2003).

EEO Complaints by Type and Year

0

5,

10,

15,

20,

25,

30,

35,

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

of Charges

Religion Gender National Origin Race Disability Age

Court Cases (1)

• Griggs vs. Duke Power (1971)
  • Lack of discriminatory intent was not a valid defense against a charge of discrimination.
  • Further, selection tests must be job related if adverse impact occurs, and the employer bears the burden of proof if 4/5 rule shows that adverse impact has occurred.
• Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp (1971)
  • Disparate treatment issues
  • Applications were not accepted from women with pre-school aged children; men under no such burden

Court Cases (2)

• U.S. vs. Georgia Power (1973)
  • This case addresses issues of validity; the validation strategy used must follow the Uniform Guidelines.
  • Further, the population used in the validation studies must be representative of applicant pool and must include protected classes.
• McDonnell Douglas vs. Green (1973)
  • This case established the standards for disparate treatment.

Court Cases (4)

• Auto Workers vs. Johnson Controls (1991)
  • Not selection procedures, but job assignment
  • Safety exception to BFOQ defense applies only when gender or pregnancy actually interferes with ability to perform job.
  • In addition, the company cannot make decisions about reproductive safety for the employee.
• Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins (1989)
  • Gender discrimination based on sexual stereotypes
  • “Take a course at charm school;” “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.”

Court Cases (5)

• Wards Cove Packing vs. Atonio (1989)
  • In this case. a challenged employment practice needs to have a “legitimate business justification”, not be “essential” or “indispensable.”
  • Also, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof in disparate impact cases (though this was later overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1991).
• Harris vs. Forklift Systems, Inc., (1993)
  • Sexual harassment – the “reasonable woman” test
• Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007)
  • Plaintiff held to 180 day time limit on filing charges

EEO Coverage: Who’s Covered?

• Gender
  • Pregnancy treated as other medical conditions
  • Sexual harassment
• Race or color
• Religion
• National origin
• Age (> 40)
• Disability
• In Federal Government: marital status, parental status, political affiliation, sexual orientation
• State laws may add additional factors

The WalMart Suit

• Filed in 2001 (Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. )
• Based on gender and promotions to management
  • 2/3 of employees female; only 1/3 of managers
  • Only 14% of store managers are women
• In 2004, certified as a class action (1.5 to 1.6 million potential

plaintiffs) [as of December 2007, class action status

reaffirmed]

• Cost to WalMart???
• Recently….WalMart has started to release EEO-1 reports

Equal Pay Act (1963)

• Covers gender only
• Requires equal pay for work requiring similar:
  • Effort
  • Skill
  • Responsibility
  • Working conditions
• Exceptions for:
  • Merit
  • Seniority
• Must raise lower-paid workers, not lower pay of higher paid workers

Remember these… They’ll appear again...

Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19791981198319851987198919911993199519971999200120032005