|
Discrimination
Our company is in New York City. We now have only about five employees and are only planning on hiring about three or four more. Is our company covered by equal rights legislation?
The company if licensed is under the obligation to abide by the Federal Laws that are established by the government. The fact that the company has less than 15 employees gives them the consideration that they are not bound by the legislation. However,“Most state and local laws apply to employees not covered by federal legislation (such as those with fewer than 15 employees).” (Dessler, 2011, p. 42). The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA),applies to wage discrimination between men and women in equal jobs for the same company. within the same establishment, and is the only one that actually applies to this scenario because the company only has to have one or more employees to have this Act be enforced.
The laws that require the company to have 15 or more employees would be:
v Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. This act applies specifically to those businesses that have 15 or more employees on the payroll at any given time.
v The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits age discrimination against individuals who are forty years of age or older.
v Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. (Dessler, 2011)
Were we within our legal rights to ask the possibly age-related and substance abuse–related questions? Why or why not?
In this situation with the amount of employees on staff they may allow the company to be able to “side step” the legislation, but in a company that has more employees they would not. In many states an employer may ask for a birthdate to verify information, but they are not allowed to ask age. This virtually makes very little sense considering the fact that if they know your date of birth, they know how old you are. The stress related to being an older person may also be relevant according to findings in the book, “Opportunities Lost: The Impact of Stereotypes on Self “.(Crocker, Major, Steele, 1998) Many older Americans that have been downsized and lost their jobs find it difficult to find employment. Even though they possess plenty of experience, often time’s companies want to train a younger employee, or they do not want to pay what a more educated or experienced employee may want for the same job.
In most states, it is legal to ask if an applicant: If they have ever been convicted of a felony, but the applicant is not at liberty to divulge what the felony was. In some states, such as California, the applicant does not have to state the felony if it is over 7 years. They may choose to share the information with the company at the interview. Often on an application it will state that having been convicted is not grounds for being exempted from being hired.(Cornell Law, 2013)
It is in the company’s best interest to stay away from these types of questions, especially if they should hire more employees in the future, then the ones that were forced to answer the questions may feel compelled to file a discrimination suit after the fact.
Did Dan and Alex create a hostile environment for Ruth? Why or why not? How should we have handled this matter?
There was definitely a hostile environment scenario at play in this situation. .Ruth did not feel comfortable with their language and actions in the work place. The hostile environment question would relate to the fact the Ruth did not appear able to handle the situation on her own without retaliation, nor did she have a neutral party such as Human Services representative to talk to confidentially about the situation. Discussing the problem with a supervisor could also have caused a negative reaction and possible loss of job for her.
The matter should have been handled by a Human Services Rep., that could have been a mediator. There should also have been meetings for all employees to state specifically what is acceptable behavior in the work place and what will not be tolerated. Each employee would have to sign a contract stating that they would adhere to the rules or risk termination.
What have we been doing wrong up to now with respect to EEO-related matters, and how do you suggest we rectify the situation in the future?
The company leadership should have training in EEO matters, and there should be trainings for all employees. The company handbook should be compiled and given to each employee, and mandatory meetings to discuss problems and issues along these lines. This is not an “ignorance is bliss” situation, where the company just ignores the laws, at the risk of losing good employees, and possibly being sued. One law suit for a company can mean bankruptcy, and consumer loss of trust can have financial repercussions.
References:
Dessler, G. (2011). A Framework for Human Resource Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Cornell Law, (2013) Legal Information Institute, National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from :www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/
Crocker, Major,& Steele, (1998) Opportunities Lost: The Impact of Stereotypes on Self retrieved from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83767/
Respond
|