It is a contravention of the Act to dismiss or in any other conduct show prejudice against an employee for filing a grievance or taking part in a legal proceeding under the Act. There are three primary assumptions of discrimination, each of which effects to a particular type of discrimination claim. These are the mixed motives claim, disparate treatment claim, and the disparate impact claim (Women’s Bureau, 1997, p. 208). These theories vary in the nature of the evidence that is needed to prove an assertion of discrimination.
Preponderance of evidence is the standard of proof required by law, which is “evidence just enough, at least, to tip the scales in the complainant’s favour” (Women’s Bureau, 1997, p. 208). However, the burden of proof in an employment discrimination case more often than not demotes to the burden of convincing a trier of fact, which is the jury or judge, that the complainant’s accusations are more likely accurate than inaccurate. It is illegal to discriminate against any applicant or employee because of the person’s national, religion, sexual orientation, disability, race, age, gender and other motives.
No one can be refused equal employment opportunity because of linguistic characteristics, culture, ancestry, or birthplace ordinary to a definite ethnic group. Further, equal employment opportunity cannot be refused for the reason of association or marriage with individuals of a national origin group; association or membership with particular ethnic promotion groups; participation or attendance in mosques, temples, churches or schools commonly linked with a national origin group; or a surname connected with a national origin group (HG. org, n. d. ).
While employment guidelines such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Federal Contract Compliance Program have reallocated minorities from small industries to larger ones, still they have not considerably picked up combined minority employment. Several job opportunities are ascertained though controlled word-of-mouth networks and several employers persist to screen out minority applicants in traditions that laws do not deal with (Bloch, 1994, p. 1).
Additionally, some employers steer clear of hiring older, minorities or women workers in order to evade litigation. Antidiscrimination interventions are less prevalent in private employers as compared to public employers; for small than large establishments; and for those well off groups than groups with high unemployment rates (Bloch, 1994, p. 3). Minority job seekers continually confront direct recruitment and hiring discrimination (Bloch, 1994, p. 2).
Several employers believe that minority groups usually will be less efficient as compared to other workers and they find it too expensive to establish when individual candidate do not conform to these typecasts. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) puts into effect all federal laws disallowing job discrimination. The EEOC in addition provides coordination and oversight of all federal equal employment opportunity policies, regulations, and practices.
After waiting for over 10 years of deliberation, the United States Congress has approved and President Bush has signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Beck-blog, 2008, n. d. ). The said bill seeks to put a stop to health insurers and employers from using genetic testing as a source for discrimination against employees and job applicants. Under the aforesaid law, employers are prohibited from using this kind of information as the foundation for hiring and other employment-related assessments (Beck-blog, 2008, n. d. ).