wk 8 hra rep hmwrk

profileBoopboop56
Home>Homework Answsers>Human Resource Management homework help
ip

see attached

  • a year ago
  • 10
Report issue
files (2)

wk8hrarep.docx

Respond to both peers' discussion responses below using APA format. Cite scholarly article

1. A

Electric car maker Tesla, Inc., violated federal law by tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and by subjecting some of these workers to retaliation for opposing the harassment (EEOC, 2024).  This article reports on a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Tesla, Inc., alleging that the company violated federal law by allowing widespread and ongoing racial harassment of Black employees at its Fremont, California location. This suit claims that from at least 2015 to currently, Black employees have endured racial abuse, stereotyping, and hostility.  This includes being subjected to racial slurs and graffiti with offensive symbols and threats.  This lawsuit also alleges that employees who opposed this harassment faced retaliation.

The employment law issue in this article centers on allegations of racial harassment and retaliation.  Tesla violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII prohibits racial harassment and requires employers to take prompt and appropriate action to investigate ans stop harassment when complaints are made.

This employment law issue of racial harassment and retaliation continues to be important to companies today because it is crucial for creating a healthy, productive, and legally compliant workplace. Workplace discrimination harms the workers who experience it, exacerbates structural and longstanding inequities in the U.S. labor market, and holds back economic growth and dynamism (Carmen Cumming, 2021)

EEOC sues Tesla for racial harassment and retaliation. US EEOC. (n.d.).  https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-tesla-racial-harassment-and-retaliation

Openchowski, E. (2022, January 19). The importance of anti-discrimination enforcement for a fair and equitable U.S. labor market and broadly shared economic growth. Equitable Growth.  https://equitablegrowth.org/the-importance-of-anti-discrimination-enforcement-for-a-fair-and-equitable-u-s-labor-market-and-broadly-shared-economic-growth/ 

1.B

A recent Supreme Court decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (2024) has made it easier for employees to claim workplace discrimination. In this case, a female police sergeant was reassigned to a different role despite her strong performance. Although she did not experience a pay cut or demotion, she lost important benefits like her FBI status and a more predictable schedule. Lower courts ruled that she could not claim discrimination because her financial situation did not change. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and said that employees only need to show that the job action caused harm, not necessarily a significant financial loss, to prove discrimination (Totenberg, 2024).

This ruling ties back to Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006), which set the precedent that retaliation does not have to involve firing or demotion (justia, n.d.). Any action discouraging a reasonable employee from filing a discrimination complaint can be considered retaliation. Muldrow further emphasizes that even changes like losing career opportunities or schedule stability can count as discrimination.

Employers must ensure their decisions are unbiased and be prepared to justify them to avoid legal challenges. While some may fear an increase in lawsuits, this ruling promotes fairer, more transparent treatment of employees. Ultimately, it shows that workplace discrimination is about fair and respectful treatment, not just financial harm.

 

References:

Totenberg, N. (2024, April 17). The Supreme Court opens the door to more discrimination claims involving job transfers. NPR.  https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245309316/supreme-court-decision-employee-discrimination-work-transfers

 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/53/

less