scholarly journals A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis on Affirmative Action Policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 112
Author(s):  
Robert Knox ◽  
Michael O. Adams ◽  
Samuel Arungwa ◽  
Gbolahan S. Osho
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity ◽  
National Origin ◽  
Affirmative Action Policy ◽  
Discriminatory Practice

The Act established, in pursuit of meeting it is proclamation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, most employers did not abide by the act, and continued to discriminate against minorities and women with lower wages or refuse to hire them. If a minority reported the incident, usually there was nothing done to the employer. The United States office the Civil Rights Commission describes affirmative action as covering every degree of single termination of a discriminatory practice, that allows for race, national origin, sex, or disability, laterally with other benchmarks, and that embraced to offer prospects to a class of persons with historically or actually been deprived of those prospects, and to preclude repetition of discrimination in the future.

AT&T and the Private-Sector Origins of Private-Sector Affirmative Action

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benton Williams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Private Sector ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity ◽  
Federal Communications Commission ◽  
Employment Opportunity ◽  
Promotion Policies ◽  
Sector Employer

In January 1973, American Telephone & Telegraph, then the world's largest private-sector employer, entered into a Consent Decree with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In this decree, following a fourteen-month dispute before the Federal Communications Commission,at&tagreed to implement specific goals and timetables for hiring women in traditionally male jobs, men in traditionally female jobs, and minorities in jobs in which they had been traditionally underrepresented.at&t's adoption of affirmative action immediately preceded the routine application of affirmative action hiring and promotion policies in large, private-sector U.S. firms regardless of federal contractor status. Nonetheless, the importance ofat&t's action remains misunderstood by critics and supporters of affirmative action alike.

United States Employment Disability Discrimination Charges: Implications for Disability Management Practice

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 48-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne M. Bruyère ◽  
Sarah von Schrader ◽  
Wendy Coduti ◽  
Melissa Bjelland
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Disability Management ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Disability Discrimination ◽  
Employment Disability ◽  
State And Local

AbstractIt is 20 years since the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act, yet employment and economic inequities continue for people with disabilities. The purpose of this article is to inform and encourage disability management leading practices to contribute toward reducing these disparities. The approach is an examination of where in the employment process applicants and incumbent employees perceive employment disability discrimination, leading to the filing of charges against an employer. Employment disability discrimination claims filed by individuals over 15 years (1993–2007) with the United States (US) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or state and local Fair Employment Practice Agencies are studied. The authors analyse employment discrimination charges by year, basis (i.e., protected class characteristics, such as disability, age, or race), issue (i.e., actions of the employer, such as discharge, hiring, or harassment), employer characteristics (i.e, size of business and industry sector), and joint filings under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (gender, race/ethnicity, and religious discrimination) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Special attention is paid to where in the employment process people with specific impairments are perceiving discrimination. Implications of these research findings for the practice and administration of disability management and employer policies are discussed.

scholarly journals Ethical Implications For Attorneys Involved In Extraterritorial Application Of The Civil Rights Acts

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-22
Author(s):  
Howard E. McNier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Disciplinary Action ◽  
Employment Practices ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
American Law

Globalization of business has increasingly involved American attorneys in an ethical dilemma which is not just academic, but may result in disciplinary action against the attorney. What is counsel to do when it is discovered that overseas employment practices (legal in the foreign country) violate American law? May counsel, citing current case law, ethically advise management that discharge of a troublesome employee may be effected "legally" by simply transferring the employee overseas, then firing her? These ethical issues can be put in sharp focus by reviewing a provision of the 1991 Civil Rights Act (CRA) that extends application of the 1964 CRA to cover American citizens working overseas for American owned or controlled firms. Expansive interpretation of this by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has ensnarled over 21,000 overseas businesses with the threat of being sued, in the United States, for employment practices committed outside of the United States.

The Enduring Controversy: Developments in Affirmative Action Law in North America

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Bell ◽  
Angela Hegarty ◽  
Stephen Livingstone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current State ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
The Law ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
Action Measures ◽  
Human Resources Strategies

This article seeks to examine the current state of the law on affirmative action in the United States and Canada. Drawing upon developments at both a statutory and constitutional level it considers to what extent the law permits or requires measures to alter the composition of institutions to make them more representative in terms of race or gender. Its primary focus is on employment. It argues that constitutional provisions and judicial interpretation in Canada has been more sympathetic to affirmative action measures, especially in the past decade. After surveying the early development of affirmative action law in the United States it focuses on recent developments, notably the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and recent Supreme Court decisions such as the Adarand v Pena case, to examine the extent to which the scope for affirmative action measures has been reduced. In Canada the article considers both Charter equality jurisprudence and statutory developments such as the Employment Equity Act of 1986. The article concludes by observing that the position remains complex but that there is scope for affirmative action measures in both jurisdictions, perhaps more so in Canada where such measures do not require a backward looking, compensatory rationale. It also suggests that such measures may now have become well established in the human resources strategies of large corporations in both jurisdictions, rendering their disappearance unlikely.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document