Standing Against to Workplace Discrimination (In the Name of Law & Order, Humanity, Religion, and Better Management): A Literature Review

Rational judgments and decisions should be based on solid logic and rationale as well as numeric variables. On the other hand, irrational judgments and decisions rely on feelings, linguistic variables. Appointed executives who manage acting businesses must demonstrate solid logic, numeric and linguistic justifications for their decisions to the stakeholders: business owners, government, share-stakeholders. The study examines the justification and logic of the four main factors why humanity fights against discrimination during the promotion: legally, humanitarian reasons, religious grounds, and administrative reasons. The study strongly suggests that discrimination during the promotion is against the law, religion, humanity, and efficient management. For these reasons, honest, fair people and organizations have to fight against discrimination; in the name of law, in the name of religion, in the name of humanity, and in the name of managerial efficiency. Discriminators, who are unfairly making the lives of innocent employees, their children, and partners hell, have to be punished by the law, religion, humanity, and management for realizing humanistic and holistic justice.

Standing Against Workplace Discrimination (2); Using Management Accounting Information (Balanced Scorecards)

Discrimination in the workplace has been all through history, and it exists today, and there will be in the future. Some people suggest that get used to it and benefit from it. But this study suggests honest and honorable have to stand against Discrimination in the name of humanity, the rule of law, religion, and better management. The study suggests that one of the best ways to stand against Discrimination is to provide and use correct, reliable, and concrete managerial accounting information. Kaplan and Norton (1992) developed balanced scorecards for managerial purposes and performance measurement.

Workplace discrimination allegations and outcomes involving caucasian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic/Latinx Americans with multiple sclerosis: A causal comparative analysis

BACKGROUND: Although African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx Americans with multiple sclerosis (MS) frequently cite workplace discrimination as a major concern, the specific nature of this discrimination is not yet well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate racial/ethnic differences in allegations of workplace discrimination by Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic/Latinx American individuals with MS. METHODS: The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database was used to describe and compare the frequency and characteristics of discrimination allegations filed by people with MS in the three race/ethnicity groups. Quantitative analyses, including a one-way analysis of variance and Chi-square tests, were used to examine 2009–2016 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints. These complaints were received by the EEOC from people with MS who identified themselves as Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic/Latinx American (N = 3,770). RESULTS: Both African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx Americans tended to encounter discrimination at a younger age than Caucasian Americans. African American and Hispanic/Latinx American charging parties were more likely to be women than were Caucasian charging parties. The size and location of employers against whom allegations were filed varied significantly among the three racial/ethnic groups. The EEOC was more likely to resolve allegations in the charging parties’ favor when the allegations were filed by Caucasians. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed modest but significant differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of the three groups under study. More research is needed to determine why racial/ethnic status bears on the discrimination experiences of Americans with MS.

A comprehensive breath test that confirms recent use of inhaled cannabis within the impairment window

Legalization of cannabis for medicinal and/or recreational use is expanding globally. Although cannabis is being regulated country by country, an accurate recent use test with indisputable results correlated with impairment has yet to be discovered. In the present study, a new approach for determining recent cannabis use within the impairment window after smoking was developed by studying 74 subjects with a mean age of 25 years and average use history of 9 years. Horizontal gaze nystagmus was evaluated along with subject self-assessments of impairment, and blood and breath samples were collected before and after smoking cannabis. Breath and blood pharmacokinetic parameters and cannabinoid profiles determined recent use within the impairment window. No subjects were positive for recent use pre-smoking, although all subjects had detectable cannabinoids in breath samples. We describe an inhaled cannabis recent use test that correlates with impairment and helps protect against wrongful prosecution and workplace discrimination.

“I Don’t Even Want to Come Out”: the Suppressed Voices of Our Future and Opening the Lid on Sexual and Gender Minority Youth Workplace Discrimination in Europe: a Qualitative Study

Introduction In Europe, young sexual and gender minority (SGM) people continue to face discrimination in the labour sector despite advances in legislation towards their acceptance and equal treatment. Non-discrimination policy strategies helping SGM individuals are not equally enforced in all contexts, making it difficult for many SGM individuals to disclose their identity, hence undermining their health and well-being. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted between October 2020 and February 2021 with 55 SGM youth (18–27 years) having work experience from Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain and the UK. Results From the analysis, three overarching themes were significant: (1) societal discrimination played a major role in sociocultural factors and policy considerations, (2) workplace discrimination had distinct factors and impacts on SGM individuals and (3) SGM inclusion should use strategies to ensure workplace diversity and equality. Conclusions SGM individuals from contexts of poor acceptance tended to hide their identity in the workplace, while transgender and non-binary individuals were prone to experience force-disclosure and discrimination in all aspects of employment. There is a lack of resolute reaction from policy makers in managing problems faced by SGM people in workplaces. New laws improving the status of SGM people need to be further adopted, staff training should be implemented, and managers are crucial in achieving an inclusive climate in the workplace. Policy Implications It is essential to implement policies on how to effectively handle problems faced by sexual and gender minority people in the workplace.

From Interpersonal Violence to Institutionalized Discrimination: Documenting and Assessing the Impact of Islamophobia on Muslim Americans

Background: Muslims and people perceived as Muslims in the U.S. face Islamophobia, defined as anti-Muslim or anti-Islam sentiments. Reports of hate crimes motivated by Islamophobia have increased, as have other forms of Islamophobia, such as workplace discrimination. This qualitative study examined the impact of Islamophobia on Muslim Americans, ranging from school and workplace discrimination to policies that target Muslims, such as government surveillance. The objectives of this study were: 1) Document the spectrum of Islamophobia in the U.S.; and 2) Assess the impact of Islamophobia on Muslim Americans.Methods: Components of grounded theory guided data collection and analysis. Using a semi-structured interview guide, a total of 40 participants (20 women, 20 men) were interviewed regarding self-reported experiences with Islamophobia and responses to bias incidents. Participants self-identified as Muslim, were at least 18 years of age, and represented various ethnic groups. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using Nvivo 12.Results: Findings indicate that Islamophobia and xenophobia are significant sources of long-term stress. Participants discussed physical assaults in public locations, vandalism at their homes, persistent questioning regarding their country of origin, and verbal harassment in the form of derogatory terms.Conclusion: Islamophobia in the U.S. is multifaceted and a significant source of stress for Muslim Americans. Findings from this study and others on this topic highlight the need for interventions to support Muslim Americans.