MGT 516: Legal Implications in Human Resources
Introduction
In the different work places, there are different malpractices that employers may perform that are contrary to the law. In most cases, the private sectors tend to be discriminative in one way when it comes to treating the different employees. It is for this reason; the American government gives a requirement for those private businesses that have contracts with the government to have an affirmative action plan. Additionally, the government requires that these companies must follow to the letter the affirmative action plan in order to promote equality in the different work places. In order to explain this clearly, two American case examples will be used to show the relationship between affirmative action plans and human resources management in a company.
Discussion
The first example of an American court case is the Griggs versus Duke Power Company. Before 1955 when the constitution was amended in relation to the affirmative action plan, Duke Power Company had a policy where African Americans were only employed in the labor. In this department, the remuneration was the lowest. However, after 1955, the company changed their policy to people must have a high school diploma and must pass an IQ test in order to be employed in the departments. It was noted that the blacks did not have high school diplomas and those who had diplomas failed to pass the test. On the other hand, most of the whites who were employed in this department did not fulfill the requirement (North Carolina History Project, 2011).
Based on the case findings, the judges ruled that the company department of human resource was discriminative. This is because the blacks did not have better education due to segregation in the schools; thus, they were always deemed to fail. This means that the duke company was indirectly discriminative. Additionally, the court ruled that the test should only be for the required job only and not general because they were discriminative (North Carolina History Project, 2011). Therefore, the judge ordered the human resource department to change their affirmative action plans entirely so that they can offer equal employment opportunities to their employees.
The second case is Ricci versus DeStefano where the Ricci filed a lawsuit against the fire department for discrimination. In this case, the tests were issued to employees for the purposes of gaining promotion to the managerial positions once being promoted. After the completion of the test, none of the blacks had passed in order to be promoted, the Hispanic people who passed the test were selected for promotion. Ricci who has been there for eleven years felt discriminated (Cornell University Law School, 2011).
The court held that the company was discriminative because the test administered to the firefighters were not for the required job position but selective. This means that the discrimination was indirect. The Supreme Court ordered the firefighting company to let I/O Solutions design tests for them that were fit for all fire fighters. I/O Solutions is a company recognized by the government for testing exams that fit the tasks. Therefore, the court ordered the human resource department of the company to wait for the I/O Solutions to design the tests fit for the desired promotion (Cornell University Law School, 2011).
Conclusion
According to the American law, it is wrong to discriminate the employees based on their skin color, age, disability or gender. This is because they do not offer equal employment opportunities for employees. As a result, some of the employees are left behind while others grow. It is for this reason; the American government orders the different human resources department of companies to have affirmative action plans that will protect the employees against any form of discrimination. This shows that the department is following the correct code of ethics by promoting equal employment opportunities.
References
Cornell University Law School, (2011). Supreme Court of the United States. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZS.html
North Carolina History Project, (2011). Griggs versus Duke Power. John Locke Foundation. Retrieved from: http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/297/entry
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]