Affirmative Action in HiringWhat legal issues do Hugo and Gregory need to be mindful of as they react to Osannas complaint?Hugo and Gregory are pushing the limits when it comes to affirmative action at Reliable Insurance. Chances are there wasn’t any malicious intent when turning Osanna away from the job she was interested in, however from her point of view, it is easy to see why she is complaining to the EEOC: 90+% of Reliable Insurance’s workforce is white males, she was told there are no jobs available right around the same time another white male is hired for the exact same position Osanna was after.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was put in place to safeguard against practices similar to what seems to be going on at Reliable Insurance. There are a myriad of laws that Hugo and Gregory need to be mindful of as they work to solve Osanna’s complaint. The law that Osanna is complaining against is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the EEOC website, Title VII is a law that oulaws the discrimination of someone based on their race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (Laws Enforced by EEOC, n.d.). In Osanna’s case, both race and gender could be called into question on discrimination, as it seems there are many more males than females employed at Reliable, as well as white seems to be the most prevalent race/color at the company.
In addition to Title VII, Hugo and Gregory should be mindful of other laws enforced by the EEOC. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act makes it illegal to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth; the equal Pay Act of 1963 is a law that enforces that men and women should have equal pay if they perform equal work in the same workplace; and the Age of Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects workers over 40 from discrimination because of age (Laws Enforced by EEOC, n.d.). Any of these laws safeguard employees from discrimination and although Reliable might not know they are discriminating against Osanna, these laws will signify if they were. It is best they read these laws by the EEOC and make sure they fully interpret them the way the law was meant to be interpreted in order to work to solve
The EEOC is particularly concerned with workers’ age, gender, and age at employment. Workers can sue for discrimination because of their age (Buchlin v. California, Inc., 441 U.S. 505, 504 (1979)); age at employment (Gentile Corp., Inc., 492 U.S. at 504-499 (1987); id. at 512-514); discrimination by gender (Gentile Corp., Inc., 492 U.S. at 543 (1988)); and age at employment (Powett & Young, Id. at 548 (internal quotation marks omitted). The EEOC believes those laws are necessary in order for workers to be considered by other businesses for their ages at employment.
It is generally true that there are other laws that may be relevant to workplace age discrimination and the EEOC would be willing to provide guidance on that issue later. For instance, a “man’s age” law might relate to employment in which the man is employed only, but that can lead to other employment agencies and other law enforcement agencies having to come up with ways of handling that age discrimination.
Finally, there is a “women’s” age at work law and it requires employers to provide an age at work questionnaire when hiring and promotion (Laws Enforced by EEOC, n.d.). The term “woman’s” in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Gender and Age report (SAP-0909, p. 47) defines a “man’s” job as a male employee’s age at work, with one exception, such that a female person may not be the “person, place, or institution to which [such person] is associated.” The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Gender and Age report (SAP-0909, p. 47) uses the term “female” in applying this definition to women, rather than men, who might not be the “person, place, or institution to which [such person] is associated” (SAP-0909, p. 47). However, an employer’s wage requirements for hiring or promotion require that female applicants be subject to an age discrimination rule. The Department of Labor may require a person to demonstrate that they are female at the job. The Department of Labor may also require a job applicant to demonstrate that they are female at the job. Generally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cannot require a person to obtain a form explaining why they are a woman, since men are not generally required to fill the form. Although women may not be exempt from the requirement, these laws do apply, and generally, employers are obligated to keep female employees informed about their role and gender at employment.
Finally, the Bureau’s Office of Personnel Management’s Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee issued a bulletin saying that employers must provide an age at work test for applicants with a valid government application when hiring and promotion. As noted by Secretary of Labor Bill Williams on the February 24, 2009, Committee report, the Office of Personnel Management conducted its own tests (SAP-0909-05). While these tests are not intended to ascertain the extent and breadth of an employer’s sexual orientation and gender identity, the Office of Personnel Management is required to administer a test under the Internal Revenue Code to allow women in federal jobs to apply with less prejudice to a prospective employment partner. Specifically, these tests evaluate a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity, as determined by the Director of the Office of