Employment discrimination Paper Example

Since America achieved its independence, freedom was bestowed over Americans. The freedom that they had experienced have been improved through time because the citizens were able to live without intervention from foreign nations. The freedom exercised by the American citizens was further strengthened by including in its Constitution the freedom of the press, of expression and of the religion. However, though free, many of the citizens did not enjoy the freedom enjoyed by other Americans, especially the white Americans.

Through time, the minority groups, like the blacks and the women, were discriminated in many ways and in many areas, which include discrimination in the workplace despite the fact that the Constitution expressly provided for the equal protection clause. METHODOLOGY The research will focus on the discrimination experienced in workplace and inequality in employment. The reseach will include actual cases that deals with employment discrimination. It will also touch the laws and orders that had tolerated discrimination.

Moreover, the research will focus on the two given cases, Paradise v Allen and Dothard v Rowlinson, that clearly express the discrimination against women and against blacks in employment. LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Equal Protection Clause as empbodied in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive ny person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Nelson, 1988). 2. Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964 or the Equal Employment Oppurtunities Unlawful employment practices; “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Guerin, L. , Delpo, A. , 2006).

3. 1979 Decree requires the Director of Alabama Department of Public Safety and the Director of the Alabama Personnel Department, among other things, to utilize promotion procedures that conform with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and that have little or no adverse impact on black seeking promotion (Paradise v. Allen).

4. 1981 Decree contained that parties agreed that the Department’s proposed corporal promotion test would be administered to applicants, that the results would be reviewed to determine any adverse impact on blacks under the Guidelines, that the determination of a procedure would be submitted to the court if the parties were unable to agree thereon, and that no promotions would occur until the parties agreed or the court ruled upon the promotion method to be used (Paradise v. Allen).

5. 1986 Decree requires defendants to demonstrate that any procedure used for selecting entry-level troopers after the one-for-one hiring requirement is lifted complies with the prior orders in the case and the applicable law. The order also provided that the one-for-one hiring requirement shall be lifted when Public Safety demonstrates that, for a period of three months, at least 25 percent of the permanently employed state trooper force is black.

Underlying this condition, the Department ordered that at least fifty (50) percent of the promoted to corporal are black, if qualified black candidates are available, and if the Department had not developed and implemented a promotion plan without adverse impact for the relevant rank (Paradise v. Allen). 6. Alabama statute as used in the case of Dothard v Rawlinson provides Physical qualification;

“The applicant shall be not less than five feet two inches nor more than six feet ten inches in height, shall weigh not less than 120 pounds nor more than 300 pounds and shall be certified by a licensed physician designated as satisfactory by the appointing authority as in good health and physically fit for the performance of his duties as a law-enforcement officer.

The commission may for good cause shown permit variances from the physical qualifications prescribed in this subdivision” (Dothard v Rawlinson). 7. Administrative Regulation 204 establishes gender criteria for assigning correctional counselors to maximum-security institutions for “contact positions,” that is, positions requiring continual close physical proximity to inmates of the institution (Dothard v Rawlinson).