Race Discrimination in Minnesota
|
Management/Leadership |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our Minnesota company has the policy of assigning black store managers only to stores in predominantly black neighborhoods. Is this discrimination, or common sense?
This particular situation in Minnesota is a case of discrimination. While it might be logical to assume that an African-American manager would have a better rapport with customers in a predominantly black neighborhood, it is, in reality, illegal discrimination.
The country’s largest drugstore chain, Walgreen’s, recently settled a lawsuit with the EEOC for this same type of situation. Black pharmacists and managers made the charge that they were only being promoted to positions at stores that were located in predominantly black neighborhoods. Included in this claim were a large number of under performing stores, which of course, limited their earning potential. These employees also claimed that it limited their opportunities in comparison to employees of other races.
Originally, the EEOC complaints involved stores in St. Louis, Tampa, Detroit, and Kansas City. The suit, however, rapidly expanded to cover the nation, and turned into a class action suit.
Walgreen’s decided to settle out of court rather than to admit to any wrongdoing, or endure an expensive and lengthy trial. The company settled the case for $20 million. This award was divided among more than 10,000 former and current Walgreen’s employees throughout the United States.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in promotion and hiring based on color, religion, sex, national origin, or race.
In choosing to limit opportunities for any employees because of their color or race, an employer is committing discrimination. According to the law, employers must take into consideration all qualified applicants for any position. They should then promote or hire the most qualified candidate, regardless of that individual’s skin color.
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is also illegal to discriminate in awarding benefits to employees, including time off, discounts, and health insurance. This law is enforced by the EEOC, better known as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Similar protections are awarded to contractors or sub-contractors on federal projects, under Executive Order 11246. JH
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am and is filed under
Hiring and Staffing, Management / Leadership Development.
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 (798)
- Benefits (1209)
- Compensation (1187)
- Employment Training (293)
- Hiring and Staffing (715)
- Human Resources Management (1875)
- Labor Laws (1031)
- Management / Leadership Development (292)
- Performance Management (177)
- Structural Development (41)
- Termination (419)
- Workplace Health & Safety (218)
- Workplace Management (392)
Blogroll
Archives
Recent Posts
-
Overtime
November 21st, 2008 -
Hurman Resource response from manager to employee changing lunch hour
November 21st, 2008 -
Employee Separation
November 21st, 2008 -
Maternity leave
November 21st, 2008 -
What comes next…after you terminate an employee?
November 21st, 2008 -
When can you implement a salary cap on a position whether it is exempt or non exempt?
November 21st, 2008 -
What is COBRA and who gets it?
November 20th, 2008
Pages