Equal Employment
Opportunity and
Human Resources
Management
Human
Resource
Management
Managing Human Resources
• Snell
SnellBohlander
• Bohlander
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western.
All rights reserved.
14th edition
PowerPoint Presentation by Charlie Cook
The University of West Alabama
Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Explain the reasons behind passage of EEO
legislation.
2. Prepare an outline describing the major laws
affecting equal employment opportunity. Describe
bona fide occupational qualification and religious
preference as EEO issues.
3. Discuss sexual harassment and immigration reform
and control as EEO concerns.
4. Explain the use of the Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection Procedures.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–2
Objectives
(cont’d)
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
5. Provide examples illustrating the concept of
adverse impact and apply the four-fifths rule.
6. Discuss significant court cases affecting equal
employment opportunity.
7. Illustrate the various enforcement procedures
affecting equal employment opportunity.
8. Describe affirmative action and the basic steps in
developing an affirmative action program.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–3
Historical Perspective of EEO Legislation
• Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
 The treatment of individuals in all aspects of
employment—hiring, promotion, training, etc.—in a
fair and nonbiased manner.
• Changing National Values
• Economic Disparity
• Early Legal Developments
 Civil Rights Act (1866)
 Executive Order 8802
 Civil Rights Act (1964)
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–4
The Legal Environment
Concerns
• Fairness issues
• Economic disparity
• Changing material
values
• Interest group
agendas
• Political party
mandates
• Loop-holes in
current legislation
Laws
Agencies
• Passed by
congress
• Passed by state
legislature
• Presidential
executive orders
• Type
Federal
nameagencies
here
• State agencies
title here
• Type
Independent
commissions
Challenges to Laws
State
Court
System
Federal
Court
System
Opinions and
Decisions
Regulatory
Action
Management
Responses
• Rulings
• Written
regulations
• Complaint
investigations
• Technical
assistance
• Lawsuits
• Planning
compliance
strategies
• Formulating
appropriate HR
policies
• Briefing and training
employees and
managers
• Defending lawsuits
• Working with
government
agencies lobbying
for policy changes
Source: Adapted from James Ledvinda And Vida Scarpello, Federal Regulation of Personnel
and Human Resources Management, 2e. (Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing, 1990).
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–5
Government Regulation of EEO
• Protected Classes
 Individuals of a minority race, women, older people,
and those with disabilities who are covered by federal
laws on equal employment opportunity.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–6
Major Laws Affecting Equal Employment
Opportunity
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–7
Major Laws Affecting Equal Employment
Opportunity (cont’d)
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–8
Major Laws Affecting Equal Employment
Opportunity (cont’d)
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–9
Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
• It shall be unlawful employment practice for an
employer:
To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with
respect to his [or her] compensation, terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment because of such
individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin....
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–10
Jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• All private employers in interstate commerce who employ
fifteen or more employees for twenty or more weeks per year
• State and local governments
• Private and public employment agencies, including the U.S.
Employment Service
• Joint labor-management committees that govern
apprenticeship or training programs
• Labor unions having fifteen or more members or employees
• Public and private educational institutions
• Foreign subsidiaries of U.S. organizations employing U.S.
citizens
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–11
Exemptions From Antidiscrimination
Regulations
• Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)
 Suitable defense against a discrimination charge only
where age, religion, sex, or national origin is an actual
qualification for performing the job.
• Business Necessity
 Work-related practice that is necessary to the safe
and efficient operation of an organization.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–12
Age Discrimination Actions
• Excluding older workers from important work activities.
• Making negative changes in the performance
evaluations of older employees.
• Denying older employees job-related education, career
development, or promotional opportunities.
• Selecting younger job applicants over older, betterqualified candidates.
• Pressuring older employees into taking early retirement.
• Reducing the job duties and responsibilities of older
employees.
• Terminating older employees through downsizing.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–13
What Is a “Disability”?
• The Americans With Disabilities Act defines a
disability as:
 A physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities.
 A record of such impairment.
 Being regarded as having
such an impairment.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–14
What Is a “Disability”? (cont’d)
• The ADA does not cover:
1. Homosexuality or bisexuality
2. Gender-identity disorders not resulting from physical
impairment or other sexual-behavior disorders
3. Compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania
4. Psychoactive substance-use disorders resulting from
current illegal use of drugs
5. Current illegal use of drugs
6. Infectious or communicable diseases of public health
significance (applied to food-handling jobs only and
excluding AIDS)
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–15
Figure 3–2
ADA Suggestions for an Accessible Workplace
• Install easy-to-reach switches.
• Provide flashing alarm lights.
• Provide sloping sidewalks and
entrances.
• Remove turnstiles and revolving doors
or provide alternative accessible paths.
• Install wheelchair ramps.
• Install holding bars in toilet areas.
• Reposition shelves for the easy reach
of materials.
• Redesign toilet partitions to increase
access space.
• Rearrange tables, chairs, vending
machines, dispensers, and other
furniture and fixtures.
• Add paper cup dispensers at water
fountains.
• Widen doors and hallways.
• Replace high-pile, low-density
carpeting.
• Add raised markings on control
buttons.
• Reposition telephones, water fountains,
and other needed equipment.
• Provide designated accessible parking
spaces.
• Add raised toilet seats.
• Provide a full-length bathroom mirror.
• Install hand controls or manipulation
devices.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–16
EEO Rules Applicable to Federal Contractors and Agencies
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–17
Fair Employment Practice Laws
• Fair Employment Practices (FEPs)
 State and local laws governing equal employment
opportunity that are often more comprehensive than
federal laws.
 Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act exempts
employers with fewer than fifteen employees, many
states extend antidiscrimination laws to smaller
employers with one or more workers.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–18
Sexual Harassment
• Sexual Harassment (under Title VII)
 Unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors,
and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature in the working environment
 An employer is considered guilty of sexual
harassment when:
 The
employer knew or should have known about
the unlawful conduct and failed to remedy it or to
take corrective action.
 The
employer allows nonemployees (customers or
salespeople) to sexually harass employees.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–19
Sexual Harassment
Unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors, and
other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature in
the working environment.
Types of Sexual Harassment
Quid Pro Quo
Submission
Rejection
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
Hostile Environment
Uncomfortable
Subjective
Response
3–20
Sexual Harassment
• Quid Pro Quo Harassment
 Occurs when “submission to or rejection of sexual
conduct is used as a basis for employment
decisions.”
 Involves a tangible or economic consequence, such
as a demotion or loss of pay.
 Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services (1998)
 Same-sex sexual harassment (male-to-male,
female-to-female) is covered under Title VII.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–21
Sexual Harassment (cont’d)
• Hostile Environment
 Occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct “has the
purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job
performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.”
 Dirty jokes, vulgar slang, nude pictures, swearing,
and personal ridicule and insult constitute sexual
harassment when an employee finds them offensive.
 Courts use a “reasonable person” test for hostile
environment.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–22
Sexual Orientation
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lists “sex”
(gender) as a protected class.
 Court cases have consistently held that sexual
orientation is not a valid defense against
discrimination.
 No federal law bars discrimination based on one’s
sexual orientation.
 Companies—in support of their diversity initiatives—
increasingly are fostering “gay-friendly” work places.
 Of the nation’s top 500 companies, 70 percent now
offer health benefits to same-sex couples.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–23
Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986)
• Employers must comply with the Act by:
1. Having employees fill out their part of Form I-9.
2. Checking documents establishing an employee’s
identity and eligibility to work.
3. Complete the employer’s section of Form I-9.
4. Retain Form I-9 for at least three years.
5. Present Form I-9 for inspection to an Immigration
and Naturalization Service officer or to a Department
of Labor officer upon request.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–24
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures
• Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures
 A procedural document published in the Federal
Register to assist employers in complying with federal
regulations against discriminatory actions.
 Applies to employee selection procedures in the
areas of hiring, retention, promotion, transfer,
demotion, dismissal, and referral.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–25
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures
• Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures define discrimination as:
 The use of any selection procedure which has an
adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other
employment or membership opportunities of
members of any race, sex, or ethnic group (protected
class) will be considered to be discriminatory and
inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the
procedure has been validated in accordance with
these guidelines (or, certain other provisions are
satisfied).
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–26
Validity
• The requirement that, when using a test or other
selection instrument to choose individuals for
employment, employers must be able to prove
that the selection instrument bears a direct
relationship to job success.
• Proof of validity is established through validation
studies that show the job relatedness or lack
thereof for the selection instrument under study.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–27
Forms of Discrimination
• Adverse Impact
 The rejection of a significantly higher percentage of a
protected class for employment, placement, or
promotion when compared with the successful,
nonprotected class.
 Possibly the unintentional result of an innocent act,
yet the outcome is still discriminatory.
• Disparate Treatment
 An employer’s intentional unequal treatment or
evaluation by different standards of protected-class
members.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–28
Determining Discrimination
• Adverse Rejection Rate, or Four-Fifths Rule
 Rule of thumb followed by the EEOC in determining
adverse impact for use in enforcement proceedings.
 According to the Uniform Guidelines, a
selection program has an adverse impact when
the selection rate for any racial, ethnic, or sex
class is less than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of
the rate of the class with the highest selection
rate.
 The four-fifths rule is not a legal definition of
discrimination, rather it is used to monitor severe
discrimination practices.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–29
Determining Discrimination
• McDonnell Douglas Test
 Establish a Prima Facie Case of Discrimination:
1. The person is a member of a protected class.
2. The person applied for a job for which he or she
was qualified.
3. The person was rejected,despite being
qualified.
4. After rejection,the employer continued to seek
other applicants with similar qualifications.
 The burden now shifts to the employer to prove that
the action taken against the individual was not
discriminatory.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–30
Determining Adverse Impact:
The Four-fifths Rule
Source: Adoption of Questions and Answers to Clarify and Provide a Common Interpretation of the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, Federal Register 44, no. 43 (March 2, 1979): 11998.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–31
Determining Adverse Impact
The Four-Fifths Rule
A rule of thumb followed by the EEOC in determining
adverse impact for use in enforcement proceedings.
Employees
Number Given Raise
Selection Ratio
Minority Selection Ratio/
Majority Selection Ratio
Adverse Impact
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
Blacks (6)
Hispanics (3)
Whites (12)
2
2
9
.33
.66
.75
.33/.75 = .44
.66/.75 = .88
Yes
No
3–32
Workforce Utilization Analysis
• Workforce Utilization Analysis
 The process of comparing the composition by race
and sex for jobs within an organization against
composition of the employer’s relevant labor market.
 The workforce is at parity when its composition
matches the relevant labor market.
 If the workforce composition is below external figures,
the affected protected classes are underutilized and
the employer should take affirmative steps to correct
the imbalance.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–33
Significant Court Cases
• Griggs v Duke Power Company (1971)
 The Supreme Court ruled that employer
discrimination need not be overt or intentional to be
present—employment practices having an adverse
impact on protected classes can be illegal even when
applied equally to all employees.
 Employers have the burden of proving that
employment requirements are job-related or
constitute a business necessity and are absolutely
necessary for job success.
 Good intent, or absence of intent to discriminate, is
not a sufficient defense of adverse impact.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–34
Significant Court Cases (cont’d)
• Albemarle Paper Company v Moody (1975)
 Supreme Court strengthened requirements on
employers to demonstrate that tests used in hiring or
promotion decisions are job-related and valid
predictors of job success.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–35
The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC)
• Composition of EEOC
 Five members and a general counsel appointed by
the president and confirmed by the Senate
 Members serve staggered five-year terms
 No more than three commission members from the
same political party.
 General counsel serves a four-year term.
• Purpose of EEOC
 Formulating EEO policy and approving all litigation
involved in maintaining equal employment
opportunity.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–36
Figure 3–4
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Case Figures, Fiscal Years 1997–2003
Source: Data compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from EEOC’s Charge Data System’s national database.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–37
Section D, EEO-1 Report
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–38
Highlights in HRM 5
EEOC Poster
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–39
Figure 3–5
Filing a Charge of
Employment
Discrimination
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–40
Internal Discrimination Complaint Procedure
Employee
discrimination
charge
Organizational EEO
officer or
designated HR staff
person
Reported to
manager or
supervisor
Investigation
No basis for
charge: charge
dismissed
Accused:
Decision on
charge
Charge
upheld
Oral or written
reprimand
Suspension
Discharge
Harmed Employee:
Appeal to organizational
EEO grievance committee
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
Restore all lost
employment conditions
3–41
How to Achieve Fairness in EEO
1. Correct stereotyped thinking.
2. Eliminate irrelevant job requirements.
3. Open job and promotion opportunities to all protected
classes.
4. Promote on the basis of merit rather than seniority.
5. Provide equal pay for equal work.
6. Modify employee benefits to needs of women,
minorities, and working families.
7. Management training in EEO requirements.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–42
Affirmative Action Issues
• Affirmative Action
 Policy that goes beyond equal employment
opportunity by requiring organizations to comply with
the law and correct past discriminatory practices by
increasing the numbers of minorities and women in
specific positions.
• Reverse Discrimination
 The act of giving preference to members of protected
classes to the extent that unprotected individuals
believe they are suffering discrimination.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–43
Affirmative Action Court Cases
• University of California Regents v Bakke (1978)
 The Supreme Court ruled that:
Applicants must be evaluated on an individual basis.
 Race can be one factor used in the evaluation process as
long as other competitive factors are considered.

 The Court stated that affirmative action programs
were not illegal (reverse discrimination) per se as long
as rigid quota systems were not specified for different
protected classes.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–44
Affirmative Action Court Cases (cont’d)
• United Steelworkers of America v Weber (1974)
 The Supreme Court held that voluntary affirmative
action programs are permissible where they attempt
to eliminate racial imbalances in “traditionally
segregated job categories.”
 In Weber, the Court did not endorse all voluntary
affirmative action programs.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–45
Managing Diversity: Affirmative Action
• Challenges to Affirmative Action (AA):
 AA has not improved protected groups employment.
 Individuals hired under AA feel prejudged as inferior
performers, and are often viewed as “tokens.”
 AA programs have failed in assimilating protected
classes into the workforce.
 Preferences shown toward one protected class may
create conflicts between other minority groups.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–46
Highlights in HRM 6
Basic Steps in Developing an Effective Affirmative Action Program
1. Issue a written equal employment opportunity policy and
affirmative action commitment.
2. Appoint a top official with responsibility and authority to direct and
implement the program.
3. Publicize the policy and affirmative action commitment.
4. Survey present minority and female employment by department
and job classification.
5. Develop goals and timetables to improve utilization of minorities
and women in each area where underutilization has been
identified.
6. Develop and implement specific programs to achieve goals.
7. Establish an internal audit and reporting system to monitor and
evaluate progress in each aspect of the program.
8. Develop supportive in-house and community programs.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–47
Court Decisions on Affirmative Action
• Adarand Constructors v Peña (1995)
 The Supreme Court ruled that federal programs that
use race or ethnicity as a basis for decision making
must be strictly scrutinized to ensure that they
promote “compelling” governmental interests.
• Hopwood v State of Texas (1996)
 The Court ruled in a decision affecting admission
standards at the University of Texas law school that
diversity could not constitute a compelling state
interest justifying racial preference in selection
decisions.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–48
Managing Diversity: Affirmative Action
• Grutter v Bollinger
 The Supreme Court held in that colleges and
universities can consider an applicant’s race as a
factor in admission decisions.
 The decision upheld an admission policy at the
University of Michigan Law School in which officials
considered an applicant’s race along with other
factors when making admission decisions.
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
3–49
Key Terms
• adverse impact
• affirmative action
• bona fide occupational
qualification (BFOQ)
• fair employment practices
(FEPs)
• four-fifths rule
• protected classes
• business necessity
• reasonable accommodation
• charge form
• reverse discrimination
• disabled individual
• sexual harassment
• disparate treatment
• Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection
Procedures
• EEO-1 report
• equal employment opportunity
© 2007 Thomson/South-Western. All rights reserved.
• workforce utilization analysis
3–50