Discrimination In Employment Essay

Two separate statutes specifically resuscitate to discrimination in employ manpowert. The first is the Equal comprise Act, which was passed in 1963 (effective date was June 10, 1964). The second is Title vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the Equal Pay Act deals solely with wages paid to women and men within the same company, Title vii focuses on differentiatory hiring/firing practices and advancement policies within companies (Crouch, 2001, p.37-38). uncomplete is specific to the issue of wind up discrimination however, they both encompass discrimination on the basis of racetrack, religion, or national origin. Both of these statutes stomach been applied to interscholastic and intercollegiate athletics, primarily in suits brought by effeminate coaches claiming sex discrimination. Title VII was enacted as a comprehensive prohibition on private acts of involution discrimination. It forbids homophobic study practices based on the race, color, religion, sex, or natio nal origin of the applicant. These categories may, however, be used to commemorate between applicants when sex, religion, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). A BFOQ is very narrowly defined as an actual job requirement, not merely a customer or employer preference. For example, race is never considered a BFOQ (Crouch, 2001, 38-40). Title VII also contains a nonretaliation provision which prohibits all employers defined in the act from discriminating against any employee or job applicant who has invoked his or her rights under Title VII or who has assisted with or participated in any proceeding brought by someone else (Gregory, 2003, p. 28). In the depth psychology of the judicatures, the alleged sex discrimination action need not only be based upon a consideration of an unalterable characteristic (like gender) possessed by the discriminatee but which is not possessed by the discriminator (Minchin, 2001, p. 50). Thus, not only are acts such as termi nating female employees when they marry or refusing to accept employment applications from any female actionable, but also acts taken by a member of one sex against a member of the same sex can be actionable. A demand for sexual favors order by one male to another as a condition of employment can be just as discriminatory as a similar demand directed by a male to a female. Title VII is applicable to all employers of more than fifteen persons, and it specifically covers just about all state and local government employees as well as employees of most educational institutions. It is implemented by the EEOC, which has the authority to process and investigate any complaints. The EEOC may also bring suits in federal official official court if necessary. A charge brought by the EEOC is based on what the EEOC perceives to be a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination which adversely affects an entire class of individualistics. The EEOC may also conduct industrywide conformance rev iews.If the discrimination found by the EEOC in state or local government cannot be rectify informally, the EEOC may refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney General. In all other cases, the EEOC may go to federal court to follow out the law (Gregory, 2003, p.28-29). Enforcement of Title VII is not especial(a) to EEOC actions, however, because the legislation also has individual and class causes of action. This type of charge originates from an individual or group of individuals who allege that they were adversely affected by some act of unlawful discrimination (Gregory, 2003, p. 29). Organizations can bring discrimination claims on behalf of their members if the alleged discriminatory action injured its members, if the claim can proceed without the participation of those injured members, and if the claim is relevant to the disposals purposes. The requirements for filing a charge include the followingThe person filing the charge moldiness be or represent an aggrieved person (must have a personal stake in the endpoint of the controversy and must have suffered a personal injury), except in cases in which the charge is filed by the EEOC itself.The charge must be directed against an employer as defined by Title VII.The charge must be filed within the specified time limits.The form of the charge must comply with certain procedural requirements (Saguy, 2003). Once these requirements are met, the EEOC will proceed with the charge.The remedies of both injunctive and affirmative quietus are available to the loving party in an employment discrimination suit. The prevailing party may be awarded back open and attorneys fees as well as an injunction prohibiting the employers unlawful action. In addition, the court may order the employer to cease its discriminatory practices, to reinstate employees, and to implement an appropriate affirmative action end to eliminate existing discrimination and prevent its recurrence.These remedies are guided by the two goals of the act (1) to master equality of employment opportunity by removing barriers based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and (2) to make the dupe of unlawful discrimination wholeto put the victim in the position he or she would have been in had the discrimination not occurred.Both of these approaches have limitations. Even taken together, they are not sufficient to enforce a prohibition against sex discrimination(Saguy, 2003). Although the Equal Pay Act applies to all employers, Title VII has been limited to employers of more than fifteen people. Thus, many smaller businesses are not subject to the mandates of Title VII. The Equal Pay Act is limited in other ways. For example, it is directed only to discrepancies in pay levels once on a job. It does not address the hassle of discriminatory hiring or advancement policies.The basic weakness of these acts is that incomplete is all-encompassing. They fail to address the overall problems of sex discrimination that exist outs ide of the workplace (Saguy, 2003). Thus, very a couple of(prenominal) of the problems of discrimination encountered in athletics are addressed by either act. This legislation provides potential relief only in athletic employment.Another major problem in pursuing litigation under these statutes is the cost. incomplete statute provides any guaranteed basis for the eventual recovery of attorneys fees and/or double or triple damages. Thus, litigation is not an option for many of those who might wish to file claims. Cases are seldom pursued, and the effectiveness of the legislation diminishes as the chance that an employer will be punished lessens. One last problem is that courts have been reluctant to interpret the statutes broadly.This reluctance stems from the fact that hiring and salary decisions are well within the champaign of management prerogatives allotted to employers. The court is reluctant to interfere in any discretionary decision unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion. Thus, it is very difficult to establish a case based on a complaint regarding practices in either of these areas. Usually, the evidence is open to a variety of interpretations. Such mint can make it difficult or even impossible for a plaintiff to prevail in a sex discrimination case under application of the aforementioned statutes.ReferencesCrouch, Margaret A. (2001). Thinking about sexual Harassment A Guide for the Perplexed. Oxford University stuff.Gregory, Raymond F. (2003). Women and Workplace Discrimination Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality. Rutgers University Press.Minchin, Timothy J. (2001). The Color of Work The jumble for Civil Rights in the Southern Paper Industry, 1945-1980. University of North Carolina Press.Saguy, Abigail C. (2003). What Is Sexual Harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne.University of California Press