Wards Cove Packing VS. Atonio redefines EEO analyses
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court decision in the case of Wards Cove Packing Co vs Atonio, which referred to how employment practices were responsible for racial separation in the workplace, may be significant for private and public sector employers, federal contractors, and plaintiffs. The court's statements on clear record-keeping and analysis are especially important to employers with at least 100 employees. The decision permits plaintiffs to use either a separate race-ethnic group or bring actions as a combined minority group. The parts of previous rulings affirmed by the decision include racial unevenness in one part of an employer's workforce is not sufficient to establish adverse impact; qualified persons in the labor market are the reference for study; and plaintiffs must show that specific factors in a defendants hiring or promotion policy have disparate impact. In response, employers should analyze federal guidelines for employment to anticipate hiring or promotion problems involving minorities.
Publication Name: Personnel Journal
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 0031-5745
Year: 1990
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Intent Vs. Effect: Title Seven Case Law That Could Affect You (Part 2)
Article Abstract:
Litigation of Title Seven cases has revealed inconsistent judicial standards. The conflict exists due to court interpretation of discriminatory intent and effect of employment practices. Some explanation for the inconsistencies arises from exemptions written by Congress into the Act. While the EEOC continues to use the court system for redress, strict regulation enforcement of the Act will continue. If the EEOC foresakes employment of the courts, private enforcement of the Civil Rights Act will be necessary. Currently, the standard of discriminatory intent versus discriminatory effect where Title Seven actions are concerned remains in conflict. Court judgements involving seniority systems are inconsistent. The courts are strict on standard enforcement of pre-employment criteria, and then inconsistent regarding sex discrimination.
Publication Name: Personnel Journal
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 0031-5745
Year: 1984
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Intent vs. Effect, Title VII Case Law that Could Affect You: Part I
Article Abstract:
Civil rights in the United States have been defined and protected during the last twenty years by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII of this act guards against discrimination based on sex, religion, national origin, race, color, or ethnicity. In recent years the court has been called on to evaluate certain employment practices based not only on their discriminatory effect, but also upon the intent with which they are used. This case study analyzes some of these decisions.
Publication Name: Personnel Journal
Subject: Human resources and labor relations
ISSN: 0031-5745
Year: 1984
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: HR hears the call of technology. Cisco turns the Internet inside (and) out. What you can do about weapons in the workplace
- Abstracts: Managing for organizational effectiveness in sub-Saharan Africa: a culture-fit model. Understanding injustice-related aggression in organizations: a cognitive model
- Abstracts: Personnel's role in managing disability. Personnel Management 20 years on
- Abstracts: The composition of public sector compensation: the effects of unionization and bureaucratic size. The Effect of Unionization on Safety in Bituminous Deep Mines
- Abstracts: Secretaries Prefer Bucks to Blooms. Recruitment Ads That Get Results. It's No Accident: What You Think Is What You Do