Hr5131team3.weebly.com



Exercise 3.2 – Goebel et al v. Frank Clothiers. Form 3.2.1 Mr. Goebel and other African American applicants are victims of racial discrimination because of the company’s hiring policy. The hiring policy was not intentional, but it did result in a disparate impact. African American applicants are less likely to hold a high school diploma or GED and average lower scores on the IQ test compared to White candidates. The IQ test is not relevant to the ability to perform the Assistant Manager role within the company. Per the ruling on Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the court ruled that the company’s employment requirements did not pertain to the applicants’ ability to perform the job. Frank Clothiers is similar to the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case, where applicants were required to pass an IQ test and have a high school diploma or GED. Mr. Goebel and other African American applications will have to prove prima facie evidence of discrimination. The burden will then fall on Frank Clothiers to show that the high school diploma and the IQ test are consistent and is job-relatedness. The burden will then fall back on Mr. Goebel and other African Americans to determine if there is a different process that can be put in place to hire and will not discriminate against a protected class. After the Griggs decision, there have been many cases that have focused on job-relatedness issues. A case which would show this process would be Connecticut v. Teal. The “job relatedness” argument must be made for any step where “prima facie” evidence is presented. Thus, in Connecticut v. Teal, the burden was on the defendant to prove that the test was “job related” even though the stat had actually promoted a larger proportion of African-Americans for the position. Another case would be Albermarle Paper Company v. Moody. The case resulted in a careful job analysis to identify the specific knowledge, skills, and ability necessary to perform the job. There is evidence of disparate impact against African Americans. As the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests that are not a reasonable measure of qualification and ability to perform the job. Since the test was used as a decisive factor in who is interviewed, this will have a disparate impact against African Americans since a larger percentage of them scored lower on the IQ test. Disparate impact will occur as well due to the requirement of a high school diploma or GED since a larger percentage of African Americans do not have a high school diploma or GED. The 80% rule can help determine an adverse impact on minority group. Based on hiring the company did, 32% African American of applicants were hired. Compared to 21% of Hispanic/Latinos and only 10% of Whites were hired. The 80% rule will not be able to show a violation of Title VII. On a side note, 32:10 shows that the rate of hiring African Americans is 320% that of hiring White applicants.The Goebel Et. Al. v. Frank Clothiers would be able to “borrow” a validity study based on data collected in several other organizations and cases. Based on EEOC’s uniform guidelines, it provides guidance regarding “transporting” validity evidence from existing situations into new situations. This case can use information from previous similar cases, Griggs v. Duke Power, Albermarle v. Moody, etc. Since disparate impact is evident, Frank Clothiers will need to prove that the hiring process is consistent and job-related. If Frank Clothiers is unable to, then it will result in a disparate impact and the company will need to do away with the process. If Frank Clothiers is able to prove the process is consistent and job-related, then the burden will fall back on the defendant to show if there is another process Frank Clothiers can put in place which will be effective and will not cause disparate impact. Based on previous similar cases, Frank Clothiers’ hiring process will result in disparate impact. The company should immediately remove the required IQ test for all applicants. The company should do a job analysis to determine the knowledge, skills, and ability for the Assistant Manager position. The Job Analysis could be done via a focus group, interviews, or other ways. Based on the results of the Job Analysis, the company should re-write the job description to remove the high school diploma or GED requirement. Once they have re-written the job description, the HR department should do a follow-up interview with leaders of the company to get approval. HR should also do a follow-up interview with managers and employees to get their acceptance of the roles and responsibilities of the Assistant Manager. It is critical to get the acceptance and approval from internal personnel. Store managers should select which applicants to interview based on the skills presented in each resume. The resumes that are able to show the closest match with the knowledge, skills, and abilities required by the new job description should constitute the pool of interviewees. The company should clearly select applicants who have proven to have the required past experience and the ability to perform the job at a satisfactory level. The company should also do professional reference checks to ensure candidates have performed at a high level in the past. The company should then implement a training program to ensure that the applicants hired are properly trained to succeed in the role as Assistant Manager. The company would then implement a performance management and appraisal program to retain the best performing employees and replace/coach the poor performing employees. The company should also update their employee handbook to outline the anti-discrimination policy. Also, the company could provide training to employees and managers regarding anti-discrimination. There should also be multiple ways for employees to report potential discrimination to oneself or others and HR should do an investigation on all complaints, small or large.To implement a “within ethnic classification” would not be the best idea. This could potentially result in reverse discrimination against White candidates. Similar to the Hopwood v. Texas case. The University of Texas Law School used lower minimum criteria for African American and Mexican American candidates than for other candidates. To group test results within ethnic classification is called race norming. The practice of race norming was outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Title VII now states that it is unlawful employment practice for a respondent to adjust the score of or use different cutoff scores for employment related tests. Gordon Howe will not be able to file a Title VII class-action lawsuit. He would have had at least a high school diploma or GED and he passed the IQ test. If he had not passed the test, then he could potentially file a lawsuit. However, Gordon would not be able to file a Title VII lawsuit since the Title VII is for the protection of the protected “minority” classes. Disparate impact theory can be used in cases involving subjective selection processes like interviews. A subjective employment procedure can violate Title VII if it has a disproportionate, adverse effect on minorities. Employees who promote based on subjective decisions may, without intending to do so, perpetuate discriminatory patterns. The case that supports this is Connecticut v. Teal. Congress approved the non-motivational, disparate impact approach. Another case would be Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust. The court held that Title VII challenge to a subjection promotion system can only be analyzed under the disparate treatment model. In a unanimous decision, the Court allowed “disparate impact” theory for subjective employment practices. In this case, Clara Watson was denied a promotion based on an interview. Reference PageGriggs v. Duke Power Co.. (2012, June 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:38, September 11, 2012, from Washington v. Davis. (2012, April 15). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:40, September 11, 2012, from Hopwood v. Texas. (2012, June 24). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:45, September 11, 2012, from ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download