As new managers, there exists several policies and practices that need to ensure you are aware of concerning Equal Employment Opportunity known as EEO, and non-discrimination within a workstation. This training will aid in providing the knowledge required to make unprejudiced pronouncements when contracting new workforce in respective teams. The goal of the training is informing the new managers on the type of classes that are protected and the company’s employment policies and practices that relate to discrimination. The essay also seeks to discuss instances of discrimination that infringes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and reasons why the act is imperative, how to correctly document discernment claims to be able to safeguard a retribution claim.
Protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Since the implementation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, other employment protection statutes have been enacted. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 safeguarded citizens from discernment founded on race, color, sex, belief, nationality, and vengeance (Walsh, 2016). The law similarly necessitates that proprietors rationally accommodate applicants’ and workers’ honestly held spiritual undertakings, except doing so may inflict an undue adversity on the process of the proprietor’s entity. During the process of hiring, a manager should not request for training or educational capabilities that may not part of the occupation. During the process of hiring, a manager may not ask for qualifications for abilities that do not relate to the job.
Promotions are subject to discrimination regulations, similar to the process of hiring and equal pay. When establishing the capabilities of every applicant for elevation or when testing for promotional progress, companies may not need testing that is impartial, or victimizes against color, sex, age, race, or religious conviction. Noe et al (2011) noted that Disparate Treatment is when individuals are treated differently based on their differences in race, religion, color, sex, disabilities, national origin or age. For example for many years only women were seen as a liability to hire if they were married or had children because they were seen as the main care givers which often meant missing time from work due to sicknesses, doctor appointments and school issues. This is considered disparate treatment.
Employer conduct that violates anti-discrimination laws
Within the regulations implemented by EEOC, it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual due to a person’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic data. It is similarly illegitimate to strike back against an individual because of complaining about discernment, filing a discrimination claim, or taken part in an service discrimination enquiry or charge. It is illegitimate for a proprietor to circulate a job advertisement that exhibits an inclination for or dampens a person from applying for a job making an application.
The regulation makes it illegitimate for a company to make any employment pronouncement due to an individual’s race, color, religion, sex including sexual orientation, national origin, age, and disability. This signifies that a proprietor cannot victimize in cases that pertain employment, sacking, upgrades, and salary. It similarly denotes that an employer might not victimize, for instance, when approving breathers, sanctioning leave, allocating workplaces, or setting employment conditions regardless of how small.
The importance of the Civil Rights Act in eliminating racial discrimination in the workplace
According to Daft (2011), The Civil Rights Act was important in abolishing racial discernment in the workstation. The Civil Rights Act has aided in resolving several issues. Foremost, Making it unlawful and holding people liable for discerning against persons because of race. Secondly, eliminating and making discrimination illegitimate in every aspect. Third, guaranteeing that people are not criticized and victimized against because of certain stereotypes. For instance, names. According to Daft (2011) research illustrates the number of people that intuitively critic an individual because of their name. For instance, particular names are known to exhibit certain ethnic practices. For instance, Lakisha, Carlos, and Juan. When individuals perceive the name Lakisha they frequently believe that it is linked to an African American female, whereas Carlos and Juan can be connected to a Latino man. These are several fundamental instances of this form of inadvertent discernment.
The role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a bipartisan commission that comprises of five members given the mandate by the United States president (Clouatre, 2019). The vital goal pertaining to the development of the commission entails enforcing Title VII and additional employment regulations. For example, the ADEA. Age Discrimination Employment Act safeguards a individual against any form of employment discernment. EEOC is mandated with the power and role of inspecting charges suitable for discrimination cases against personnel who are protected by the employment regulations. Besides, the commission directs centralized agencies, public and private industries and other proprietors regarding to programs that entail employment elements, for instance, equal employment opportunity program. EOCC offers outreach programs, educational training and technical assistance programs designed for empowering proprietors to prevent and eliminate employment discrimination. Lastly, the commission offers guidance and help to magistrates managing discernment cases to facilitate amicable solving of cases.
Documentation needed to defend retaliation claims.
Retaliation is the most common concern that employees face in the national sector. Retaliation is considered as an act of a firm that initiates disciplinary action against an employee for recording a complaint, taking part in or resisting harassment, sacking or discernment in the workstation. Retaliation charge occurs when an employee is involved in threatened activity, and the firm takes institutes legal proceedings against the employee due to the particular undertaking. An employer should document retaliation as it is the solitary proof illustrating that a member of staff took part in a threatened activity that impelled the proprietor to institute adversative service decisions. There are numerous details that a proprietor requires to document to support retaliation. Foremost, there ought to be documents that the worker engaged in endangered activity. Secondly, the proprietor should verify that there was a fundamental link between the workers’ activity and the adversative actions taken by the corporation.
