Job Assignments in Nebraska
|
HR
Management |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Labor
Laws |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our Nebraska company has the policy of assigning black store managers only to stores in predominantly black neighborhoods. Is this discrimination, or common sense?
Placing a black manager in a store where the neighborhood is predominantly black may seem to make sense, but it’s discrimination.
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII of that law, discriminating against persons because of color, race, national origin, religion or sex is illegal. Hiring and promoting practices–including assignments of personnel–are protected under that law.
Understand that when an employer searches for a candidate to fill a job opening, he/she must consider everyone who’s qualified. Race, color, sex, religion and nationality are not relevant in the selection process.
Title VII provides employees with a wide range of protections. Not only does the law prohibit discrimination in the hiring practice, but also disallows it any aspect of his/her job. Occupational training, salary, advancement, even the manner an employee is fired is protected. Plus, eligibility for health insurance, leave from work and other benefits fall under Title VII.
In the case of workplace discrimination, the employee would turn to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) to investigate the complaint. If the complaint is found to be valid, the EEOC would then file suit on behalf of the complainant.
A recent suit filed by the EEOC against Walgreen,
America’s largest chain of drugstores, is a case in point. Walgreen stores in Detroit, St. Louis, Tampa and Kansas City were charged by the EEOC with race discrimination. Several African American pharmacists and managers complained that they only received promotions for openings at Walgreens stores located in African American neighborhoods. This act limited their opportunities for employment and advancement. In addition, many of these stores had sub par financial performance, meaning the potential earnings for the managers and pharmacists were also limited.
The original suit quickly expanded into a nationwide class action suit, involving over 10,000 current and former Walgreen employees. The suit never went to trial. Walgreen, instead of admitting their error, chose to settle out of court for $20 million. JH
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, October 24th, 2007 at 2:32 pm and is filed under
Hiring and Staffing, Human Resources Management, Labor Laws.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply
-
Ask a Question
Categories
- Attendance Management (1077)
- Benefits (1570)
- Compensation (1698)
- Employment Training (311)
- Hiring and Staffing (830)
- Human Resources Management (2864)
- Labor Laws (1108)
- Management / Leadership Development (342)
- Performance Management (208)
- Structural Development (41)
- Termination (575)
- Workplace Health & Safety (271)
- Workplace Management (426)
Blogroll
Archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
Recent Posts
-
Cigarette Smoking Workplace
July 31st, 2010 -
Caring for Legally Blind Spouse
July 30th, 2010 -
FMLA vs STD
July 28th, 2010 -
Joining 1st break with lunch break
July 27th, 2010 -
definition of “extended leave”
July 26th, 2010 -
vacation time remaining
July 26th, 2010 -
working more than scheduled
July 26th, 2010
Pages