Assignment: Gender Discrimination AnalysisGender discrimination has become both a larger topic and a larger issue as the classification of gender has broadened, leaving Human Resources with many opportunities and requirements to address and ensure gender equality in the workplace. To establish a foundation of clarity surrounding gender neutrality or equality in the workplace, this Assignment […]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seeks to protect American employees from prejudice arising from race, nationality, sex, color, and religion. In particular, the Act applies to employment agencies, state and local governments, apprenticeship programs, and any companies or labor unions with more than 14 employees. For example, it is illegal to base an employment decision on gender stereotypes and treat employees differently due to their relationship with anyone with these protected characteristics (Lytle, 2014). Also, denying women leadership roles based on gender discrimination is also illegal. Even more, workplace policies can get termed as discriminatory according to Title VII if they promote unequal treatment of employees based on protected characteristics. However, some seemingly discriminatory policies may be allowed if the unequal treatment comes as a bona fide occupational qualification in the employment process.
A federal case between Norther Arizona Orthopedics (NAO) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) highlighted some existing Human Resource (HR) gender discrimination practices. In the lawsuit, NAO engaged in illegal practices by hiring women over more qualified males and retaliation against individuals complaining about unequal treatment of sexes. In this case, the EEOC Phoenix District Office Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill confirmed that NAO’s HR policies went against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (EEOC, 2019). Furthermore, the regional attorney reminded HR offices of the importance of making hiring decisions using employment qualifications and not assumptions based on gender or other unfounded demographic characteristics (EEOC, 2019). Even more, the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the qualified male employees and the individual who spoke up against the discrimination and faced retaliation. Thus, the case highlights the negative repercussions of discriminatory HR policies and the need for gender parity in hiring processes.
In light of the danger of workplace gender discrimination and other characteristics protected in Title VII, it becomes important for organizations to develop policies that uphold nondiscrimination values and guide the organization’s decisions. Such guidelines would apply to their hiring, workplace, and promotion practices to ensure the business environment protects different individuals equally despite their different individual traits. The NAO lawsuit highlights the issues that arise from gender discrimination during hiring. Still, gender issues stretch to wider areas in the workplace which can be addressed using the following four items in a nondiscrimination policy:
EEOC sued Northern Arizona orthopedics for gender discrimination and retaliation. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-5-19a.cfm.
Hopkins, A., Kooken, W., & Winger, E. (2019). Inclusive clinical practice and policy for Muslim nursing students. Journal Of Transcultural Nursing, 31(1), 100-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659619832079
Lytle, T. (2014). Title VII changed the face of the American workplace. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/title-vii-changed-the-face-of-the-american-workplace.aspx.
Customer's Feedback Review
Published On: 06-05-2020