BUSI 646
Managing Human Capital in Healthcare
Dr. Colleen McLaughlin
1/29/23
Joshua-Paul Johnian Sr.
Discussion Reply: Managing the Healthcare Workforce – Molly
Introduction
Molly, thank you for your submission on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and for sharing
how it impacts businesses, employees, human resources management (HRM), and faith. Your
research highlights the relationship between Biblical principles matching contemporary
challenges in the labor market and law. While many aspects encompass this legislation, past and
present, I provide additional research that expands the discussion and Biblical applications for
consideration.
Title VII
In a world of diversity, the endless variations of labor laws and employee needs can
create new challenges encompassing race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Since a single
rule cannot adequately address a broad spectrum, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) is tasked with advocating for individuals who are subject to acts of labor
discrimination (McConnel, p.40, 2021). While it may be assumed that Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act is best equipped to defend employees' civil liberties, recent court rulings and court
decisions on labor issues have given contradictory guidance. In the Supreme Court decision of
Bostock v Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee cannot be fired for being
LGBTQ. However, while this ruling would appear as a logical application of the Civil Rights
Act, the Court's decision opened the door for further legal challenges if one's sexuality violates
other employees or employers protected rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(Reed, 2022). This example further highlights the need for a comprehensive human resources
management (HRM) policy and current guidelines that reflect the quickly changing social and
legal landscape.
An extension of this present legal challenge was also argued in several courts focusing
primarily on sex stereotyping as Title VII was considered too broad and without any absolute
specific clarity on the evolving definitions of gender or sexuality. Kaminer (2020) provides
research that demonstrates the courts are inconsistent in their administration of Title VII, with
multiple genders and sexualities demanding certain protections at the expense of others. The
inconsistency between the courts and, to a lesser degree, the Supreme Court has raised a more
extensive debate if Title VII needs to be revised (Kaminer, 2020). Furthermore, current social
justice causes such as #MeToo, and #BlackLivesMatter represent emerging areas of potential
discrimination that the director of the EEOC once called these movements a “fluke” within the
more extensive discussion of protections under Title VII (Freeman, 2020), further contributing to
the need of Title VII to be revisited. The Wisdom of Solomon speaks to the dangers of partially
writing, “To show partiality is not good, Because for a piece of bread, a man will transgress.”
(NKJV). Today’s political and legal environment has become polarized to a place where
Solomon’s warning is proven true. Solomon’s use of a piece of bread is an example of something
of little consequence, yet, when a person or group of people feel marginalized, they will be
willing to fight for even the most minor victories, compensation, or validation.
Textualism and a Biblical Response
Like a double-edged sword, Title VII has achieved landmark progress for anti-
discriminatory acts. Due to its broad language, many causes and concepts of gender, sex, and
orientation now try to exist under Title VII, resulting in increased legal challenges, further
polarization, and discrimination of other groups of protected people. The malicious spirit behind
discrimination breeds strife, conflict, and division. While legal solutions can provide a
generalized standard for a community or business, true equality is an impossibility that highlights
the need for more roles Title VII provides. Today, many of the presently debated issues are
argued through textualism, which attempts to frame the issue in contemporary opinions that may
not have enough science or history to validate their legitimacy (Berman & Krishnamurthi).
Nevertheless, as with Scripture, many churches prefer to view contemporary issues through
present attitudes and practices resulting in a modification of Scripture to match the need for
social causes without considering the lasting or eternal ramifications of eternal truths.
In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul writes, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man
of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NKJV) Paul’s bold
declaration is affirmed in Psalm 86:11 and Proverbs 10:32, which guide lawmakers, legislators,
HRM, and employees to assess their individual or corporate needs and their moral response
rooted in an eternal, not contemporary, truth. Unfortunately, law and truth are challenged by
changing definitions of truth in the application, resulting in more confusion when the proposed
intent is clarity and fairness. Perhaps Title VII needs to be reassessed? Or, perhaps Title VII
needs to be narrowly defined? Whatever the successive changes for Title VII may be, HRM will
need to be proactive before the administration of new laws, to meet the needs of their employees
and the corporate goals.
Thank you for your contribution to our class discussion.
References
Berman, M. N., & Krishnamurthi, G. (2021). Bostock was bogus: Textualism, pluralism, and title
vii. The Notre Dame Law Review, 97(1), 67.
Freeman Peshehonoff, T. J. (2020). Title VII's deficiencies affect #MeToo: A look at three ways
title VII continues to fail America's workforce. Oklahoma Law Review, 72(2), 479.
Kaminer, D. N. (2020). Sex: Sexual orientation, sex stereotyping, and Title VII. UCLA Women's
Law Journal, 27(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5070/L3271047870
McConnell, C. (2021). Human Resources Management in Healthcare: Principles in Practice.
Burlington: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Reed, A. (2022). The title VII amendments act A proposal. American Business Law
Journal, 59(2), 339–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12208
The New King James Version (Pr 28:21). (1982). Thomas Nelson.
The New King James Version (2 Ti 3:16–17). (1982). Thomas Nelson.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
