USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Your paper should be three to five pages in length and include citations and references in APA format.
“Your new boss has made it clear she wants the firm to comply with U.S. employment regulations. In addition, she wants to inform the firm’s staff that a zero-tolerance policy for harassment of any sort is in effect. Develop a three to five page position paper defining the important harassment and employment-related laws and regulations in place and outlining the points you want to include as you develop and publish your firm’s harassment policy. (Research topics might include but are not limited to: sexual harassment, wage and salary legislation, recruitment, employment laws, interviewing, affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, ADA and OSHA regulations.)
And please remember! Your firm has both American and international employees so you will want to include a discussion of policy implications for your company’s global workplace.” Therefore, you will want to write it in such a manner that all can understand the implications, although they are not all U.S. citizens.
A position paper/white paper simply state’s an organization’s position or philosophy on an issue. Our issue is: US employment regulations which are numerous; therefore, I provided you with a few to consider–read Chapter 2. Your paper is only 3- 5 pages in length to include your reference page–do not go over 5 pages.
Below is a sample for those who are not sure how to get started:
White Paper/Position Paper: Crackle and Pop
Healthy Foods
American Employment Related Laws and Regulations and How They Relate to
Crackle and Pop Healthy Foods
Employees of Crackle and Pop
Healthy Foods Inc. from the Human Resources Department:
Crackle and Pop Healthy Foods has recently undergone an expansion of personnel, materials and facilities across international boundaries.
Crackle and PopInc. has increased its volume of products, number of employees, and scope with the merger of Sandy’s Sweet Simmering Snack Foods. As we embark on an international expansion, it requires that we evaluate laws and regulations across countries and implement those that are required. Therefore, management has asked that I discuss some of the United States requirements for informational and decision making purposes during the expansion to ensure laws, policies and regulations are not violated. The goal is to inform and educate all employees so that we are in compliance with the required laws and company guidelines.
The following area of U.S. laws will be discussed:
Crackle and Pop Sexual Harassment Policy, American Disability Act, Equal Pay Act, Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws, Equal Employment Opportunity , etc.,
(choose whatever laws, policies Act, you would like to discuss–again no more than 5 pages total).
25
HR—MEETING MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Equal employment opportunity and diversity of the workforce represent major
issues for HR in most organizations. To explain why, this chapter considers:
The legal underpinnings of EEO•
The controversy surrounding affirmative action•
Sources of increasing diversity•
EEO remains one of an organization’s challenges because of the amount of
litigation associated with it. Yet the diversity in the workforce will increase
in the years ahead, making it necessary to manage this part of the human
resources function effectively.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO)
In the United States, using race, gender, disability, age, religion, and certain
other characteristics as the basis for choosing among people at work is gener-
ally illegal. Doing so can also be quite expensive, as fines and back wages can
be awarded as well as sizable lawsuit settlements. Inequality in the treatment
of people with different backgrounds has been an issue for many years, but
it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that started a legislative movement toward
leveling the playing field in employment. Initially focus was on race, gender,
and religion, but these characteristics were soon followed by age, pregnancy,
and individuals with disabilities. Since then numerous Executive Orders, reg-
ulations, and interpretations by courts have affected the employer/employee
relationship. Perhaps nothing has had the impact of Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) on HR during the same period of time.
At the core of equal employment is the concept of discrimination. The
word discrimination simply means “recognizing differences among items or
people.” For example, employers must discriminate (choose) among appli-
cants for a job on the basis of job requirements and candidates’ qualifica-
tions. However, when discrimination is based on race, gender, or some other
C H A P T E R 2
Equal Employment Opportunity
and Diversity
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 2581700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 25 5/26/11 4:27:08 PM5/26/11 4:27:08 PM
26 CHAPTER 2
factors, it is illegal and employers face problems. The following bases for
protection have been identified by various federal, state, and/or local laws:
Race, ethnic origin, color (including multiracial/ethnic backgrounds)•
Sex/gender (including pregnant women and also men in certain •
situations)
Age (individuals over age 40)•
Individuals with disabilities (physical or mental)•
Military experience (military status employees and Vietnam-era •
veterans)
Religion (special beliefs and practices)•
Marital status (some states)•
Sexual orientation (some states and cities)•
These categories are composed of individuals who are members of a protected
category under EEO laws and regulations.
Disparate Treatment
The first type of illegal discrimination occurs with employment-related situ-
ations in which either: (1) different standards are used to judge individuals,
or (2) the same standard is used, but it is not related to the individuals’ jobs.
Disparate treatment occurs when members of one group are treated differently
from others. For example, if female applicants must take a special skills test not
given to male applicants, then disparate treatment may be occurring.1
Disparate Impact
Disparate impact occurs when members of a protected category are substan-
tially underrepresented as a result of employment decisions that work to their
disadvantage. The landmark case that established the importance of disparate
impact as a legal foundation of EEO law is Griggs v. Duke Power, 1401 U.S. 424
(1971). The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court established two major points:
1. It is not enough to show a lack of discriminatory intent if the employment
tool results in a disparate impact that discriminates against one group
more than another or continues a past pattern of discrimination.
2. The employer has the burden of proving that an employment require-
ment is directly job related as a “business necessity.” Consequently, the
intelligence test and high school diploma requirements of Duke Power
were ruled not to be related to the job.
This and a number of other decisions make it clear that employers must be
able to document through statistical analyses that disparate treatment and
disparate impact have not occurred.2 Knowing how to perform these analyses
is important in order for employers to follow appropriate equal employment
guidelines.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 2681700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 26 5/26/11 4:27:10 PM5/26/11 4:27:10 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 27
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CONCEPTS
Several basic EEO concepts have resulted from court decisions, laws, and
regulatory actions. Four of these (see Figure 2-1) help clarify key EEO ideas.
Business Necessity and Job Relatedness. A business necessity is a
practice necessary for safe and efficient organizational operations. Business
necessity has been the subject of numerous court decisions. Educational re-
quirements often are based on business necessity. However, an employer
who requires a minimum level of education, such as a high school diploma,
must be able to defend the requirement as essential to the performance of
the job (job related), which may be difficult. For instance, equating a degree
or diploma with the possession of math or reading abilities is considered
questionable.
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). Employers may discrimi-
nate on the basis of sex, religion, or national origin if the characteristic can
be justified as a “bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to
the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise.” Thus, a bona
fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) is a characteristic providing a legiti-
mate reason why an employer can exclude persons on otherwise illegal bases
of consideration.
What constitutes a BFOQ has been subject to different interpretations
in various courts. Legal uses of BFOQs have been found for hiring Asians
to wait on customers in a Chinese restaurant or Catholics to serve in certain
religious-based positions in Catholic churches.
FIGURE 2-1 EEO Concepts
Helping to
Define EEO
Nonretaliatory Practices
Business Necessity
Job Relatedness
BFOQs (Bona Fide
Occupational Qualifications)
Burden of Proof
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 2781700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 27 5/26/11 4:27:10 PM5/26/11 4:27:10 PM
28 CHAPTER 2
Burden of Proof. Another legal issue that arises when discrimination is
alleged is the determination of who has the burden of proof, which is what
individuals who file suit against employers must prove to establish that illegal
discrimination has occurred.
Based on the evolution of court decisions, current laws, and regulations
the plaintiff charging discrimination must:
be a • protected-category member, and
prove that • disparate impact or disparate treatment existed.
Once a court rules that a preliminary case has been made, the burden of
proof shifts to the employer. The employer then must show that the bases for
making employment-related decisions were specifically job related and consis-
tent with considerations of business necessity.
Nonretaliation. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against individ-
uals who file discrimination charges. Retaliation occurs when employers take
punitive actions against individuals who exercise their legal rights. For exam-
ple, an employee who had reported harassment by a supervisor was fired, but
the Supreme Court found that it is unlawful to discriminate against someone
who has “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in
an investigation, proceeding, or hearing.”
To avoid charges of retaliation, the following actions are recommended
for employers:
Train supervisors on what retaliation is and what is not appropriate.•
Conduct a thorough internal investigation of any claims and document •
the results.
Take appropriate action when any retaliation occurs.•
RACE/ETHNIC/NATIONAL ORIGIN
The focus now shifts to equal employment laws and necessary considerations
for managing HR in light of these laws. For a listing of all the major EEO laws
and regulations, see Appendix B.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII
Although the very first civil rights act was passed in 1866, it was not until
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the keystone of antidiscrimination
employment legislation was put into place. The Equal Employment Opportu-
nity Commission (EEOC) was established to enforce the provisions of Title VII,
the portion of the act that deals with employment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act states that it is illegal for an employer to:
1. fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employ-
ment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 2881700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 28 5/26/11 4:27:10 PM5/26/11 4:27:10 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 29
2. limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way
that 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.
Title VII, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972,
covers most employers in the United States. Any organization meeting one of
the criteria in the following list is subject to rules and regulations that specific
government agencies have established to administer the act:
All private employers of 15 or more persons who are employed 20 or •
more weeks a year
All educational institutions, public and private•
State and local governments•
Public and private employment agencies•
Labor unions with 15 or more members•
Joint labor/management committees for apprenticeships and training•
Executive Orders 11246, 11375, and 11478
Numerous executive orders require that employers holding federal govern-
ment contracts not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, or sex. An Executive Order is issued by the president of the United States
to provide direction to government departments on a specific area. The Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in the U.S. Department
of Labor has responsibility for enforcing nondiscrimination in government
contracts.
Executive Orders 11246, 11375, and 11478 are major federal EEO efforts
for government contractors; many states have similar requirements for firms
with state government contracts.
Civil Rights Act of 1991
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 requires employers to show that an employment
practice is job related for the position and is consistent with business necessity. The
act clarifies that the plaintiffs bringing the discrimination charges must iden-
tify the particular employer practice being challenged and must show only
that protected-category status played some role in their treatment. One key provi-
sion of the 1991 act relates to how U.S. laws on EEO are applied globally.
Race and National Origin Issues
The original purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to address race and
national origin discrimination. This concern continues to be important today,
and employers must be aware of potential HR issues that are based on race,
national origin, and citizenship in order to take appropriate actions.
Employment discrimination can occur in numerous ways, from refusal
to hire someone because of the person’s race/ethnicity to the questions
asked in a selection interview. For example, a trucking company settled a
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 2981700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 29 5/26/11 4:27:10 PM5/26/11 4:27:10 PM
30 CHAPTER 2
discrimination lawsuit by African American employees who were denied job
assignments and promotions because of racial bias. In addition to paying a
fine, the firm must report to the EEOC on promotions from part-time to full-
time for dock worker jobs.
Sometimes racial discriminations can be more subtle. For example,
some firms have tapped professional and social networking sites to fill open
positions. However, networking sites exclude many people. According to one
study, only 5% of LinkedIn users are black and 2% are Hispanic. This lack of
access to these sites can easily be viewed as racial discrimination.3
Under federal law, discriminating against people because of skin color is
just as illegal as discriminating because of race. For example, one might be
guilty of color discrimination but not racial discrimination if one hired light-
skinned African Americans over dark-skinned people.
Racial/Ethnic Harassment. The area of racial/ethnic harassment is such
a concern that the EEOC has issued guidelines on it. It is recommended that
employers adopt policies against harassment of any type, including ethnic
jokes, vulgar epithets, racial slurs, and physical actions. The consequences of
not enforcing these policies are seen in a case involving a small business em-
ployer that subjected Latinos to physical and verbal abuse. Hispanic males
at the firm were subjected to derogatory jokes, verbal abuse, physical harm,
and other humiliating experiences. Settling the case was expensive for the
employer.
Contrast that case with another that shows the advantage of taking quick
remedial action. An employee filed a lawsuit against an airline because
coworkers told racist jokes and hung nooses in his workplace. The airline was
able to show that each time any employee, including the plaintiff, reported
problems, management conducted an investigation and took action against
the offending employees. The court ruled for the employer in this case
because the situation was managed properly.
Affirmative Action
Through affirmative action, employers are urged to hire groups of people
based on their race, age, gender, or national origin to make up for histori-
cal discrimination. It is a requirement for federal government contractors to
document the inclusion of women and racial minorities in the workforce. As
part of those government regulations, covered employers must submit plans
describing their attempts to narrow the gaps between the composition of
their workforces and the composition of labor markets where they obtain em-
ployees. However, affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court
cases and an ongoing political and social debate both in the United States
and globally.
For example, a recent Supreme Court ruling held that race should not
be used to the detriment of individuals who passed an examination and were
qualified for promotions. In this case, the city of New Haven, Connecticut,
threw out the results of a test for promotion where more white firefighters
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3081700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 30 5/26/11 4:27:10 PM5/26/11 4:27:10 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 31
passed than blacks or Hispanics. The city claimed it had to junk the tests be-
cause they would lead to an avalanche of lawsuits by black candidates who had
not passed. The court said fear of litigation was no reason to rely on race to
throw out the results.4
Supporters offer many reasons why affirmative action is important, while
opponents argue firmly against it. Individuals can examine the points of both
sides in the debate and compare them with their personal views of affirmative
action. The authors of this text believe that whether one supports or opposes
affirmative action, it is important to understand why its supporters believe
that it is needed and why its opponents believe it should be discontinued. The
reasons given most frequently by both sides are highlighted in Figure 2-2.
Managing Affirmative Action Requirements
Federal, state, and local regulations require many government contractors to
compile affirmative action plans to report on the composition of their work-
forces. An affirmative action plan (AAP) is a formal document that an em-
ployer compiles annually for submission to enforcement agencies. Generally,
FIGURE 2-2 The Debate about Affirmative Action
Arguments: Why Affirmative Action Is Needed
Affirmative action is needed to overcome past injustices or eliminate the effects of those injustices.
Affirmative action creates more equality for all persons, even if temporary injustice to some
individuals may result.
Raising the employment level of protected-class members will benefit U.S. society in the long run.
Properly used, affirmative action does not discriminate against males or whites.
Goals indicate progress is needed, not quotas.
Arguments: Why Affirmative Action Is Not Needed
Affirmative action penalizes individuals (males and whites) even though they have not been guilty
of practicing discrimination.
It is no longer needed as an African American has been elected President.
Affirmative action results in greater polarization and separatism along gender and racial lines.
Affirmative action stigmatizes those it is designed to help.
Goals become quotas and force employers to “play by the numbers.”
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3181700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 31 5/26/11 4:27:10 PM5/26/11 4:27:10 PM
32 CHAPTER 2
contractors with at least 50 employees and $50,000 in government contracts
annually must submit these plans. Courts have noted that any employer may
have a voluntary AAP, although employers must have such a plan if they are
government contractors. Some courts have ordered employers that are not
government contractors to submit required AAPs because of past discrimina-
tory practices and violations of laws.
The contents of an AAP and the policies flowing from it must be available
for review by managers and supervisors within the organization. Plans vary in
length; some are long and require extensive staff time to prepare.
Affirmative Action Plan Metrics. A crucial but time-consuming part
of an AAP is the analyses. The availability analysis identifies the number of
protected-class members available to work in the appropriate labor markets
for given jobs. This analysis can be developed with data from a state labor
department, the U.S. Census Bureau, and other sources. The utilization
analysis identifies the number of protected-class members employed in the
organization and the types of jobs they hold.
Once all the data have been analyzed and compared, then underutilization
statistics must be calculated by comparing the availability analysis with the uti-
lization analysis. It is useful to think of this stage as a comparison of whether
the internal workforce is a “representative sampling” of the available external
labor force from which employees are hired.
Using the underutilization data, goals and timetables for reducing underuti-
lization of protected-class individuals must then be identified. Actions that will
be taken to recruit, hire, promote, and train more protected-class individuals
are described. The AAP must be updated and reviewed each year to reflect
changes in the utilization and availability of protected-category members. If
the AAP is audited, the employer must be prepared to provide additional de-
tails and documentation.
SEX/GENDER DISCRIMINATION LAWS AND REGULATIONS
A number of laws and regulations address discrimination based on sex or gender.
Historically, women experienced employment discrimination in a variety of ways.
The inclusion of sex as a basis for protected-class status in Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act has led to various areas of legal protection for women.
Pregnancy Discrimination
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978 requires that any em-
ployer with 15 or more employees treat maternity leave the same as other
personal or medical leaves. Closely related to the PDA is the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, which requires that individuals be given
up to 12 weeks of family leave without pay and also requires that those tak-
ing family leave be allowed to return to jobs. The FMLA applies to both men
and women.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3281700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 32 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 33
Courts have generally ruled that the PDA requires employers to treat
pregnant employees the same as nonpregnant employees with similar
abilities or inabilities. Employers have been found to have acted properly
when terminating a pregnant employee for excessive absenteeism due to
pregnancy-related illnesses, because the employee was not treated differently
from other employees with absenteeism problems.
Equal Pay and Pay Equity
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires employers to pay similar wage rates for
similar work without regard to gender. A common core of tasks must be similar,
but tasks performed only intermittently or infrequently do not make jobs dif-
ferent enough to justify significantly different wages. Differences in pay be-
tween men and women in the same jobs may be allowed because of:
1. Differences in seniority
2. Differences in performance
3. Differences in quality and/or quantity of production
4. Factors other than sex, such as skill, effort, and working conditions
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. was a significant U.S. Supreme Court
decision on pay discrimination. Ledbetter, a female manager with Goodyear
in Alabama, claimed that she was subjected to pay discrimination because she
received lower pay during her career back to 1979, even though she did not
file suit until 1998.5 The decision examined this view and stated that the rights
of workers to sue for previous years of paid discrimination are limited. How-
ever, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that canceled
the Supreme Court ruling. The new law effectively eliminates the statute of
limitations for employees to file pay discrimination claims.
Pay equity is the idea that pay for jobs requiring comparable levels of
knowledge, skill, and ability should be similar, even if actual duties differ sig-
nificantly. This theory has also been called comparable worth in earlier cases.
Some state laws have mandated pay equity for public-sector employees. How-
ever, U.S. federal courts generally have ruled that the existence of pay differ-
ences between the different jobs held by women and men is not sufficient to
prove that illegal discrimination has occurred.
A major reason for the development of the pay equity idea is the continu-
ing gap between the earnings of women and men. For instance, in 1980, the
average annual pay of full-time female workers was 60% of that of full-time
male workers. By 2008, the reported rate of about 80% showed some progress
but a continuing disparity. See Figure 2-3.
Sexual Harassment
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued guidelines
designed to curtail sexual harassment. Sexual harassment refers to actions
that are sexually directed, are unwanted, and subject the worker to ad-
verse employment conditions or create a hostile work environment. Sexual
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3381700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 33 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
34 CHAPTER 2
harassment can occur between a boss and a subordinate, among coworkers,
and when nonemployees have business contacts with employees.
Most of the sexual harassment charges filed involve harassment of women
by men. However, some sexual harassment cases have been filed by men
against women managers and supervisors, and some have been filed by both
men and women for same-sex harassment.
Managing Sex/Gender Issues
The influx of women into the workforce has had major social, economic, and
organizational consequences. The percentage of women in the total U.S. civil-
ian workforce has increased dramatically since 1950, to almost 50% today.
This growth in the number of women in the workforce has led to more
sex/gender issues related to jobs and careers. A significant issue is related
to biology (women bear children) and to tradition (women have a primary
role in raising children). A major result of the increasing share of women
in the workforce is that more women with children are working. According to
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about three-fourths of women aged 25–54
are in the workforce. Further, about half of all women currently working are
single, separated, divorced, widowed, or otherwise single heads of house-
holds. Consequently, they are “primary” income earners, not co-income pro-
viders, and must balance family and work responsibilities. This responsibility
may affect managers’ perceptions of family/work conflict that may lead to
promotability issues for women.
To guard against pay inequities that are considered illegal under the
Equal Pay Act, employers should follow these guidelines:
Include all benefits and other items that are part of remuneration to •
calculate total compensation for the most accurate overall picture.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009, www.bls.gov.
FIGURE 2-3 Female Annual Earnings as Percentage of Male Earnings
Year
W
ag
e
R
at
io
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
(projected)
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3481700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 34 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 35
Make sure people know how the pay practices work.•
Base pay on the value of jobs and individual performance.•
Benchmark against local and national markets so that pay structures •
are competitive.
Conduct frequent audits to ensure there are no gender-based inequi-•
ties and that pay is fair internally.
The right to reassign women from hazardous jobs to ones that may be
lower paying but less hazardous because of health-related concerns is another
gender-related issue encountered by employers. Fears about higher health
insurance costs and possible lawsuits involving such problems as birth defects
caused by damage sustained during pregnancy have led some employers to in-
stitute reproductive and fetal protection policies. However, the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled that such policies are illegal. Also, having different job condi-
tions for men and women is usually held to be discriminatory.
Jobs that pay well but are nontraditional jobs for women include: archi-
tects, computer programmers, software engineers, detectives, chefs, engi-
neers, computer repair, construction, building inspectors, machinists, aircraft
pilots, and firefighters.
Individuals with Differing Sexual Orientations
As if demographic diversity did not place enough pressure on managers and
organizations, individuals in the workforce today have widely varying lifestyles
that can have work-related consequences. Legislative efforts have been made
to protect individuals with differing lifestyles or sexual orientations from
employment discrimination, though at present only a few cities and states
have passed such laws.
One visible issue that some employers have had to address is that of
individuals who have had or are undergoing sex-change surgery and therapy.
Federal court cases and the EEOC have ruled that sex discrimination under
Title VII applies to a person’s gender at birth. Thus, it does not apply to
the new gender of those who have had gender-altering operations. Sexual
orientation or sex-change issues that arise at work include the reactions of
coworkers and managers and ensuring that such individuals are evaluated
fairly and not discriminated against in work assignments, raises, training, or
promotions.
Nepotism
Many employers have policies that restrict or prohibit nepotism, the practice
of allowing relatives to work for the same employer. Other firms require only
that relatives not work directly for or with each other or not be placed in posi-
tions where collusion or conflict could occur. The policies most frequently
cover spouses, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. Gener-
ally, employer antinepotism policies have been upheld by courts, in spite of
the concern that they tend to discriminate against women more than men
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3581700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 35 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
36 CHAPTER 2
(because women tend to be denied employment or to leave employers more
often as a result of marriage to other employees).
Consensual Relationships and Romance at Work
When work-based friendships lead to romance and off-the-job sexual relation-
ships, managers and employers face a dilemma: Should they “monitor” these
relationships to protect the firm from potential legal complaints, thereby
“meddling” in employees’ private, off-the-job lives? Or do they simply ignore
these relationships and the potential problems they present? These concerns
are significant.
Most executives and HR professionals (as well as employees) agree that
workplace romances are risky because they have great potential for causing
conflict. They strongly agree that romance must not take place between a su-
pervisor and a subordinate because potential sexual harassment issues could
arise. Some employers have addressed the issue of workplace romances by
establishing policies dealing with them.
Different actions may be appropriate if a relationship is clearly con-
sensual than if it is forced by a supervisor–subordinate relationship. One
consideration is the observation that consensual workplace romances can
create hostile work environments for others in organizations.
Dealing with Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a significant concern in many organizations and can
occur in a variety of workplace relationships. As shown in Figure 2-4, individuals
in many different roles can be sexual harassers. For example, third parties
FIGURE 2-4 Potential Sexual Harassers
Employee
Supervisors
Coworkers
Other
Employees Customers
Vendors
Former
Employees
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3681700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 36 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 37
who are neither employers nor employees have been found to be harassers.
Both customer service representatives and food servers have won sexual ha-
rassment complaints because their employers refused to protect them from
regular sexual harassment by aggressive customers.
Most frequently, sexual harassment occurs when a male in a supervisory
or managerial position harasses women within his “power structure.” How-
ever, as noted earlier, women managers have been found guilty of sexually
harassing male employees, and same-sex harassment also has occurred. Court
decisions have held that a person’s sexual orientation neither provides nor
precludes a claim of sexual harassment under Title VII. It is enough that the
harasser engaged in pervasive and unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.
Types of Sexual Harassment
Two basic types of sexual harassment have been defined by EEOC regulations
and a large number of court cases. The two types are different in nature and
defined as
follows:
1. Quid pro quo is harassment in which employment outcomes are linked
to the individual granting sexual favors.
2. Hostile environment harassment exists when an individual’s work
performance or psychological well-being is unreasonably affected by
intimidating or offensive working conditions.
In quid pro quo harassment, an employee may be promised a promo-
tion, a special raise, or a desirable work assignment, but only if the employee
grants some sexual favors to the supervisor. The second type, hostile environ-
ment harassment, may include actions such as commenting on appearance or
attire, telling jokes that are suggestive or sexual in nature, allowing revealing
photos and posters to be on display, or making continual requests to get to-
gether after work that can lead to the creation of a hostile work environment.
Rude and discourteous behavior often is linked to sexual harassment.
As computer and Internet technology has spread, the number of electronic
sexual harassment cases has grown. Sexual harassment is increasingly occur-
ring via e-mails and Internet access systems. Cyber sexual harassment may oc-
cur when an employee forwards an e-mail joke with sexual content or accesses
pornographic websites at work and then shares content with other employees.
Cyber stalking, in which a person continually e-mails an employee requesting
dates and sending personal messages, is growing as instant messaging expands.
Many employers have policies addressing the inappropriate use of e-mail,
company computer systems, and electronic technology usage. Serious situations
have led to employee terminations. Once a company disciplined more than
200 employees and fired 50 of them for having e-mailed pornographic images
and other inappropriate materials using the company information system.
Many employers have equipped their computer systems with scanners
that screen for inappropriate words and images. Offending employees receive
warnings and/or disciplinary actions associated with “flagged” items.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3781700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 37 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
38 CHAPTER 2
Employer Responses to Sexual Harassment
Employers must be proactive to prevent sexual and other types of harassment.
If the workplace culture fosters harassment, and if policies and practices do
not inhibit harassment, an employer is wise to reevaluate and solve the prob-
lem before lawsuits follow.
Only if the employer can produce evidence of taking reasonable care to
prohibit sexual harassment does the employer have the possibility of avoiding
liability through an affirmative defense. Critical components of ensuring such
reasonable care include
the following:
Establish a sexual harassment policy.•
Communicate the policy regularly.•
Train employees and managers on avoiding sexual harassment.•
Investigate and take action when complaints are voiced.•
Harassment Likelihood
Research suggests that some people are more likely to be sexually harassed
than others. For example, one study found that supervisors or women with
more workplace authority are more likely to be harassed. Further research
suggests that the likelihood of men to sexually harass, and the tolerance for
sexual harassment by women vary across countries. Fundamental differences
regarding power between men and women and a cultural support of sexual
harassment lead to very different sexual harassment situations from country to
country. According to this research, Canada, Denmark, Germany, The Neth-
erlands, Sweden, and the United States are likely to have relatively less sexual
harassment than countries like East Africa, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Mexico, Turkey, and Yugoslavia.6
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Organizations with 15 or more employees are covered by the provisions of the
ADA, which are enforced by the EEOC. The act applies to private employers, em-
ployment agencies, and labor unions. State government employees are not cov-
ered by the ADA, which means that they cannot sue in federal courts for redress
and damages. However, they may still bring suits under state laws in state courts.
Discrimination is prohibited against individuals with disabilities who can
perform the essential job functions—the fundamental job duties—of the em-
ployment positions that those individuals hold or desire. These functions do
not include marginal functions of the position.
For a qualified person with a disability, an employer must make a rea-
sonable accommodation, which is a modification to a job or work environ-
ment that gives that individual an equal employment opportunity to perform.
EEOC guidelines encourage employers and individuals to work together to
determine what are appropriate reasonable accommodations, rather than
employers alone making those judgments.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3881700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 38 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 39
Reasonable accommodation is restricted to actions that do not place an
undue hardship on an employer. An undue hardship is a significant difficulty
or expense imposed on an employer in making an accommodation for indi-
viduals with disabilities. The ADA offers only general guidelines in determin-
ing when an accommodation becomes unreasonable and will place undue
hardship on an employer.
Who Is Disabled?
As defined by the ADA, a disabled person is someone who has a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits that person in some major life
activities, who has a record of such an impairment, or who is regarded as
having such an impairment. Figure 2-5 shows the most frequent disabilities
identified in ADA charges.
Mental Disabilities. A growing area of concern to employers under the
ADA is individuals with mental disabilities. A mental illness is often more
difficult to diagnose than a physical disability. Employers must be careful
when considering “emotional” or “mental health” factors such as depression
in employment-related decisions. They must not stereotype individuals with
mental impairments or disabilities but must instead base their evaluations on
sound medical
information.
FIGURE 2-5 Most Frequent ADA Disabilities Cited
Source: Based on data from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009; see www.eeoc.gov
for details.
Non-paralytic
orthopedic
Depression
Diabetes
Hearing
impairments
Heart/
cardiovascular
Vision
Cancer
Psychologica
l
disorders
Epilepsy
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0%
% of Total Cases
Im
p
ai
rm
en
t/
Sp
ec
ia
l
8.6%
6.7%
4.2%
3.9%
3.1%
2.7%
2.7%
2.5%
1.9%
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 3981700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 39 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
40 CHAPTER 2
Amendments to ADA (ADAAA). Congress passed amendments to the
ADA, effective in 2009, that overruled several key cases and regulations. The ef-
fect was to expand the definition of disabled individuals to include anyone with
a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
life activities without regard for the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures
such as medication, prosthetics, hearing aids, and so on. Major life activities in-
clude, among others, walking, seeing, breathing, working, sleeping, concentrat-
ing, thinking, and communicating.
Genetic Bias Regulations
Related to medical disabilities is the emerging area of workplace genetic bias.
As medical research has revealed the human genome, medical tests have been
developed that can identify an individual’s genetic markers for various diseases.
Whether these tests should be used and how they are used can raise ethical issues.
Employers that use genetic screening tests do so for two primary reasons.
Some use genetic testing to make workers aware of genetic problems that
may exist so that medical treatments can begin. Others use genetic testing to
terminate employees who may make extensive use of health insurance ben-
efits and thus raise the benefits costs and utilization rates of the employer. A
major company had to publicly apologize to employees for secretly testing to
determine if they were genetically predisposed to carpal tunnel syndrome.
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). Congress passed
GINA to limit the use of information by health insurance plans. Employ-
ers are prohibited from collecting genetic information or making employ-
ment decisions based on genetic decisions. “Genetic information” includes
genetic tests of the employee or family members and family medical history.
It does not apply to “water cooler talk,” or the inadvertent acquisition of
information.
Managing Disabilities in the Workforce
At the heart of managing individuals with disabilities is for employers to make
reasonable accommodations in several areas. First, architectural barriers
should not prohibit disabled individuals’ access to work areas or restrooms.
Second, appropriate work tasks must be assigned. Satisfying this requirement
may mean modifying jobs, work area layouts, or work schedules or providing
special equipment.
Key to making reasonable accommodations is identifying the essential job
functions and then determining which accommodations are reasonable so
that the individual can perform the core job duties. Fortunately for employers,
most accommodations needed are relatively inexpensive.
Recruiting and Selecting Individuals with Disabilities. Numerous
employers have specifically targeted the recruitment and selection of indi-
viduals with disabilities. However, questions asked in the employment process
should be job related.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4081700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 40 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 41
One common selection test is a physical abilities test, which can be chal-
lenged as discriminatory based on the ADA. Such physical tests must be
specifically job related, and not general. For example, having all applicants
lift 50-pound weights, even though only some warehouse workers will have to
lift that much, could be illegal. Also, rather than testing with barbells or other
artificial weights, the employer should use the actual 50-pound boxes lifted in
performing the specific jobs.
Employees Who Develop Disabilities. For many employers, the impact of
the ADA has been the greatest when handling employees who develop disabili-
ties, not dealing with applicants who already have disabilities. As the workforce
ages, it is likely that more employees will develop disabilities. For instance, a
warehouse worker who suffers a serious leg injury while motorcycling away from
work may request reasonable accommodation.
Employers must develop responses for handling accommodation requests
from individuals who have been satisfactory employees without disabilities,
but who now must be considered for accommodations if they are to be able to
continue working. Handled inappropriately, these individuals are likely to file
either ADA complaints with the EEOC or private lawsuits.
Employees sometimes can be shifted to other jobs where their disabilities
do not affect them as much. For instance, the warehouse firm might be able
to move the injured repair worker to a purchasing inventory job inside so that
climbing and lifting are unnecessary. But the problem for employers is what
to do with the next worker who develops problems if an alternative job is not
available. Even if the accommodations are just for one employee, the reac-
tions of coworkers must be considered.
Individuals with Mental Disabilities. More ADA complaints are being filed by
individuals who have or claim to have mental disabilities. The cases that have been
filed have ranged from individuals with a medical history of paranoid schizophre-
nia or clinical depression to individuals who claim that job stress has affected their
marriage or sex life. Regardless of the type of employees’ claims, it is important
that employers respond properly by obtaining medical verifications for claims of
mental illnesses and considering accommodation requests for mental disabilities
in the same manner as accommodation requests for physical disabilities.
Individuals with Life-Threatening Illnesses. The U.S. Supreme Court
has determined that individuals with life-threatening illnesses are covered
by the ADA. Individuals with leukemia, cancer, or AIDS are all considered
as having disabilities, and employers must respond to them appropriately or
face charges of discrimination. Numerous individuals with life-threatening
illnesses may intend to continue working, particularly if their illness is fore-
cast to be multiyear in nature.
An additional requirement of the ADA is that all medical information be
maintained in files separated from the general personnel files. The medical
files must have identified security procedures, and limited access procedures
must be identified.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4181700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 41 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
42 CHAPTER 2
Management Focus on ADAAA Adaptation. After the changes made by
ADAAA, less effort should be placed on determining whether an individual
is indeed disabled—the individual probably is disabled. Rather, management
should:
Define essential functions in advance.•
Handle all requests for accommodation properly.•
Interact with the employee with good faith and documentation.•
Know and follow the reasonable accommodation rules.•
OTHER AREAS OF POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION
The populations of most developed countries—including Australia, Japan,
most European countries, and the United States—are aging. These changes
mean that as older workers with a lifetime of experiences and skills retire, HR
faces significant challenges in replacing them with workers having the capa-
bilities and work ethic that characterize many mature workers in the United
States. Employment discrimination against individuals age 40 and older is
prohibited by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, amended in
1978 and 1986, prohibits discrimination in terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment against all individuals age 40 years or older working for em-
ployers having 20 or more workers. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled that state employees may not sue state government employers in federal
courts because the ADEA is a federal law. The impact of the ADEA is increas-
ing as the U.S. workforce has been aging. Consequently, the number of age
discrimination cases has been increasing, according to EEOC reports.
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
This law is an amendment to the ADEA and is aimed at protecting employees
when they sign liability waivers for age discrimination in exchange for sever-
ance packages. To comply with the act, employees must be given complete
accurate information on the available benefits. For example, an early retire-
ment package that includes a waiver stating the employee will not sue for age
discrimination if the employee takes the money for early retirement must in-
clude a written, clearly understood agreement to that effect.
The impact of the OWBPA is becoming more evident. Industries such as
manufacturing and others offer early retirement buyouts to cut their work-
forces. For instance, Ford and General Motors offered large buyouts of which
thousands of workers have taken advantage.
To counter significant staffing difficulties, some employers recruit older
people to return to the workforce through the use of part-time and other
scheduling options. During the past decade, the number of older workers
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4281700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 42 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 43
holding part-time jobs has increased. It is likely that the number of older
workers interested in working part-time will continue to grow.
A strategy used by employers to retain the talents of older workers is
phased retirement, whereby employees gradually reduce their workloads and
pay levels. This option is growing in use as a way to allow older workers with
significant knowledge and experience to have more personal flexibility, while
the organizations retain them for their valuable capabilities. Some firms also
rehire their retirees as part-time workers, independent contractors, or consul-
tants. Some provisions in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 allow pension
distributions for employees who are reducing their work hours.
Religion and Spirituality in the Workplace
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act identifies discrimination on the basis of re-
ligion as illegal. The increasing religious diversity in the workforce has put
greater emphasis on religious considerations in workplaces. However, reli-
gious schools and institutions can use religion as a bona fide occupational
qualification for employment practices on a limited scale. Also, employers
must make reasonable accommodation efforts regarding an employee’s religious
beliefs according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Employers increasingly are having to balance the rights of employees
with differing religious beliefs. One way to do that is to make reasonable ac-
commodation for employees’ religious beliefs when assigning and schedul-
ing work, because many religions have differing days of worship and holidays.
For example, some firms have established “holiday swapping pools,” whereby
Christian employees can work during Passover or Ramadan or Chinese New
Year, and employees from other religions can work on Christmas. Other firms
allow employees a set number of days off for holidays, without specifying the
holidays in company personnel policies.
Immigration Reform and Control Acts (IRCA)
The United States has always had a significant number of immigrants who
come to work in this country. The increasing number of immigrants who have
entered illegally has led to extensive political, social, and employment-related
debates. The existence of more foreign-born workers means that employers
must comply with the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Acts
(IRCA). Employers are required to obtain and inspect I-9 forms, and verify
documents such as birth certificates, passports, visas, and work permits. They
can be fined if they knowingly hire illegal aliens. E-verify is a federal govern-
ment source that can be used for this verification. Federal contractors must
use it to verify employees legal status.
Military Status and USERRA
The employment rights of military veterans and reservists have been ad-
dressed in several laws. The two most important laws are the Vietnam Era
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4381700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 43 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
44 CHAPTER 2
Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994. Under the
latter, employees are required to notify their employers of military service ob-
ligations. Employers must give employees serving in the military leaves of ab-
sence protections under the USERRA.
With the use of reserves and National Guard troops abroad, the provi-
sions of USERRA have had more impact on employers. This act does not
require employers to pay employees while they are on military leave, but
many firms provide some compensation, often a differential. Many require-
ments regarding benefits, disabilities, and reemployment are covered in the
act as well.
Sexual Orientation
Recent battles in a number of states and communities illustrate the depth of
emotions that accompany discussions of “gay rights.” Some states and cities
have passed laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or
lifestyle. Even the issue of benefits coverage for “domestic partners,” whether
heterosexual or homosexual, has been the subject of state and city legislation.
No federal laws of a similar nature have been passed. Whether gays and les-
bians have any special rights under the equal protection amendment to the
U.S. Constitution has not been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Appearance and Weight Discrimination
Several EEO cases have been filed concerning the physical appearance of
employees. Court decisions consistently have allowed employers to set dress
codes as long as they are applied uniformly. For example, establishing a dress
code for women but not for men has been ruled discriminatory. Also, employ-
ers should be cautious when enforcing dress standards for women employees
who are members of certain religions that prescribe appropriate and inappro-
priate dress and appearance standards. Some individuals have brought cases
of employment discrimination based on height or weight. The crucial factor
that employers must consider is that any weight or height requirements must
be related to the job, such as when excess weight would hamper an individu-
al’s job performance.
WORKFORCE COMPOSITION AND DIVERSITY
The existing U.S. workforce is changing, and projections indicate that more
shifting will occur in the next few years.7 To analyze the composition of workers
and jobs in the United States, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) under-
takes studies to identify current and future projected compositions. Because of
economic shifts and their effects in different industries, some types of workers
are scarce but in high demand, while others are available in excessive numbers.
A worker-related shift results from the U.S. workforce becoming more
diverse. Diversity reflects the differences in human characteristics in an
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4481700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 44 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 45
organization. The tangible indicators of diversity that employers must
consider include the following:
Race/ethnicity•
National origin/immigration•
Age/generational differences•
Gender—men and women•
Marital and family status•
Sexual orientation•
Disabilities•
Religion•
Figure 2-6 shows various approaches to dealing with diversity.
The “business case” for diversity must be linked to key business goals and
strategies and organizational results.8 The business case for diversity includes
the following:
Diversity allows new talent and ideas from employees of different •
backgrounds, which can enhance organizational performance.
Diversity helps recruiting and retention because protected-class indi-•
viduals often prefer to work in organizations with coworkers of various
demographics.
Diversity allows for an increase of market share because customers •
can be attracted to purchase products and services with varied demo-
graphic marketing activities.
Diversity can lead to lower costs because there may be fewer discrimi-•
nation lawsuits.
FIGURE 2-6 Various Approaches to Diversity and Their
Results
Ignore Diversity
Status quo is
protected
Possible legal
issues are
increased
Diversity is not
important
Begin the
Process of
Dealing with
Diversity
Diversity
training is
provided
Affirmative
action
compliance
occurs
Protected
classes are a
focus
Conflicts and
problems
occur
Build
Acceptance
of Diversity
Diversity pays
off for
company
Conflicts are
reduced
Internal
problem
solving takes
place
Solve Diversity
Issues and
Create an
Inclusive Culture
Diversity
permeates the
company
Problems are
approached
proactively
Everyone gets
along
Business results
improve
Approach
Results
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4581700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 45 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
46 CHAPTER 2
One concern with diversity programs is that they may be perceived as
benefiting only certain groups of persons and not others. Diversity actions
must be well thought out and address both the positive and negative aspects
of such programs, given the workforce composition of many organizations.
Race and Ethnicity
Significant race and ethnic shifts in the U.S. population will occur in the
next several decades. By the year 2050, racial/ethnic groups currently in the
minority will likely make up more than 50% of the U.S. population. The Census
Bureau says whites represent 67% of the population currently, but will be at
approximately 48% in 2050. The Hispanic population will increase dramati-
cally, to about 39% of the overall population, and will exceed the African
American population. The Asian population will triple to about 9% by 2050.9
Another racial/ethnic factor is the growth in the number of immigrants
to the United States and other developed countries. The United States has
always had a significant number of immigrants who have come to work in
this country. The increasing number of immigrants entering illegally has led
to extensive political, social, and employment-related issues. In the United
States, one concern is the large number of illegal immigrants hired to fill
certain jobs at low cost, despite availability of unemployed U.S. workers.
Generational Differences
Much has been written about the expectations of individuals in different age
groups and generations. For employers, these varied expectations present
challenges, especially given economic, global, technology, and other changes
in the workplace. Some common age/generational groups are labeled as
follows:
Matures (born before 1946)•
Baby boomers (born 1946–1964)•
Generation Xers (born 1965–1980)•
Generation Yers (millenials) (born 1981–2000)•
As the economy and industries have changed, the aging of the U.S. work-
force has become a significant concern. Workers over age 55 are delaying
retirement more often, working more years, and/or looking for part-time
work or phased retirement. Economic conditions are the predominant rea-
sons why these workers are bypassing the “normal” retirement age of 65. As
older and more experienced employees retire in the future, employers will
face increasing gaps as they try to replace the experience and capabilities of
baby boomers.
Generational differences in expectations are likely to add to challenges
and conflicts in organizations. For instance, many baby boomers and matures
are concerned about security and experience, while younger people have
different concerns. Generation Yers are often seen as the “why” generation;
they expect to be rewarded quickly, use more technology, and often ask more
questions about why managers and organizations make the decisions they do.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4681700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 46 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 47
Consider the dynamics of a mature manager directing Generation X and Y
individuals, or Generation X managers supervising older, more experienced
baby boomers as well as generation Y employees. However, stereotyping these
individuals by generations may not reflect how actual individuals view their
jobs and produce organizational results.
Gender Diversity
Women are becoming a greater percentage of workers in the U.S. workforce;
they comprise more than 46% of the total employed individuals. However, men
average more work time daily than do women.10 Interestingly, as the economic
and labor market has been shifting, the job fields dominated by men have been
hit harder than those consisting mostly of women. Male workers are more heav-
ily represented in manufacturing, farming, and other “male-dominated” indus-
tries, so male employees have been impacted more severely by the market shifts
than women employees with their higher rates of participation in industries
such as health care and education.
From this follows some of the gender issues that occur in organizations.
First, women overall have lower average pay than men due to the nature of
their jobs and work hours. Second, in most industries and countries, women
make up a much smaller percentage of senior executives and managers in
many organizations and occupations. Over the past decade more women have
become managers, but women comprise less of senior level executive and
board members than their numbers would suggest. Some of the wage gap
between men and women is due to the greater family/home responsibilities
that females have to meet.
Both women and men also are increasingly facing the need to aid older
family members, as matures and baby boomers encounter health disabilities
and other problems.
DIVERSITY TRAINING
Traditional diversity training has a number of different goals. One prevalent
goal is to minimize discrimination and harassment lawsuits. Other goals focus
on improving acceptance and understanding of people with different back-
grounds, experiences, capabilities, and lifestyles.
Components of Traditional Diversity Training
Approaches to diversity training vary, but often include at least three com-
ponents. Legal awareness is the first and most common component. Here, the
training focuses on the legal implications of discrimination. A limited ap-
proach to diversity training stops with these legal “do’s and don’ts.”
By introducing cultural awareness, trainers hope to build greater under-
standing of the differences among people. Cultural awareness training helps
all participants to see and accept the differences in people with widely varying
cultural backgrounds.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4781700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 47 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
48 CHAPTER 2
The third component of diversity training—sensitivity training—is more
difficult. The aim here is to “sensitize” people to the differences among them
and how their words and behaviors are seen by others. Some diversity training
includes exercises containing examples of harassment and other behaviors.
Mixed Results for Diversity Training
The effects of diversity training are viewed as mixed by both organizations
and participants. A limited number of studies have been done on the effec-
tiveness of diversity training. There is some concern that the programs may
be interesting or entertaining, but may not produce longer-term changes in
people’s attitudes and behaviors toward others with characteristics different
from their own.
Some argue that traditional diversity training more often than not has
failed, pointing out that it does not reduce discrimination and harassment
complaints. Rather than reducing conflict, in a number of situations diversity
training has heightened hostility and conflicts. In some firms, it has produced
divisive effects, and has not taught the behaviors needed for employees to
work well together in a diverse workplace.11
This last point, focusing on behaviors, seems to hold the most promise
for making diversity training more effective. For instance, dealing with cul-
tural diversity as part of training efforts for sales representatives and managers
has produced positive results. Teaching appropriate behaviors and skills in
relationships with others is more likely to produce satisfactory results than
focusing just on attitudes and beliefs among diverse employees.
The negative consequences of diversity training may manifest themselves
broadly in a backlash against all diversity efforts. This backlash takes two main
forms. First, and somewhat surprisingly, the individuals in protected groups,
such as women and members of racial minorities, sometimes see the diversity
efforts as inadequate and nothing but “corporate public relations.” Thus, it
appears that by establishing diversity programs, employers can raise the ex-
pectation levels of protected-group individuals, but the programs may not
meeting the expectations.
On the other side, a number of individuals who are not in protected
groups, primarily white males, believe that the emphasis on diversity sets them
up as scapegoats for societal problems. Sometimes white males show hostility
and anger at diversity efforts. Diversity programs are widely perceived as ben-
efiting only women and racial minorities and taking away opportunities for
men and nonminorities. This resentment and hostility is usually directed at
affirmative action programs that employers have instituted.12
Trainers emphasize that the key to avoiding backlash in diversity efforts is
to stress that people can believe whatever they wish, but at work their values
are less important than their behaviors. Dealing with diversity is not about what
people can and cannot say; it is about being respectful to others.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4881700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 48 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND DIVERSITY 49
1. Margaret M. Pinkham, “Employers Should Take
Care When Making Decisions about Caregivers,”
Employee Relations Law Journal, Summer 2008,
35–40.
2. Anne Lindberg, “Disparate Impact or Disparate
Treatment: Either Way Leads to Court,” Trend
Watcher, July 10, 2009, 1–5.
3. Fay Hansen, “Discriminatory Twist in Networking
Sites Puts Recruiters in Peril,” Work Force Manage-
ment, September 2009, 1–5.
4. C. Tuna, N. Koppel, and M. Sanserino, “Job-Test
Ruling Cheers Employers,” The Wall Street Journal,
July 1, 2009, B1; Adam Liptak, “Justices Find Bias
Against Whites,” The Denver Post, June 30, 2009, 1A.
5. Allen Smith, “Pay Bias Figures Prominently in New
Supreme Court Forum,” HR News, September 26,
2009, www.shrm.org/hrnews.
6. Harsh Luther and Uipan Luther, “A Theoretical
Framework Explaining Cross-Cultural Sexual
Harassment: Integrating Hofsteds and Schwartz,”
Journal of Labor Research, Winter 2007, 169–188.
7. “Employment Projections” U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, www.bls.gov.
8. Bill Leonard, “Diversity Initiatives Must Grow
from Key Business Goals,” SHRMOnLine, April 29,
2009, www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines; Ellen F. Curtis
and Janice L. Dreachslin, “Integrative Literature
Review: Diverse Management Interventions and
Organizational Performance,” Human Resource
Development Review, 7 (2008), 107–134.
9. “An Older and More Diverse Nation by Mid-
Century,” U.S. Census Bureau News, August 14,
2008, www.census.gov.
10. American Time Use Survey, U.S. Department of
Labor, 2008, www.bls.gov/tus/#news.
11. Susan Awbrey, “The Dynamics of Vertical and
Horizontal Diversity in Organization and Society,”
Human Resource Development Review, 6 (2007), 7–32.
12. Carol Kulik, et al., “The Rich Get Richer: Predict-
ing Participation in Voluntary Diversity Training,”
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Volume 28
(2007), 753–769.
N O T E S
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—
This website provides information on the EEOC.
It includes details on employment discrimination
facts, enforcement statistics, and technical assis-
tance programs. Visit the site at www.eeoc.gov.
The Affirmative Action and Diversity Project—A
resource for opinions surrounding the issues of
affirmative action and its cultural and economic
aspects can be found at http://aad.english.ucsb.edu.
I N T E R N E T R E S O U R C E S
Administration on Aging—This government
website provides information on aging and age
discrimination from government agencies,
associations, and organizations. Visit the site
at www.aoa.gov.
American Institute for Managing Diversity—The
nation’s leading nonprofit think tank dedicated
to promoting and furthering the field of diver-
sity management can be found at www.aimd.org.
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 4981700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 49 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
50 CHAPTER 2
“Discrimination Charges on the Rise,” Benefit News.com
Employee Benefit News, September 15, 2007, 82; Sam Hananei,
“Federal Job Discrimination Complaints Hit Record,” Yahoo!
News, March 11, 2009, 1–2.
Andrew Slobodien and Katie O’Brien, “The ADA Amend-
ments Act of 2008 and How It Will Change the Workplace,”
Employee Relations Law Journal, Winter 2008, 32–39.
S U G G E S T E D R E A D I N G S
Eileen Kelly, “Accommodating Religious Expression in the
Workplace,” Employer Responsibility and Rights Journal, 20
(2008), 45–56.
Frank Giancola, “The Generation Gap: More Myth than
Reality,” Human Resource Planning, 29 (2006), 32; Susan A.
Murphy, Leading a Multigenerational Workforce (Washington,
DC: AARP, 2007).
81700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 5081700_ch02_ptg01_025-050.indd 50 5/26/11 4:27:11 PM5/26/11 4:27:11 PM
