Case Study: Discrimination

Case Study: Discrimination

Introduction

Most organizations are in the public limelight for practicing discrimination in managing their human resource issues. Some organizations discriminate against job seekers based on sex, age, religion, race, nationality, and ethnic affiliations. Discrimination is among the legal issues addressed by laws of various countries as far as human resource management in public administration is concerned (Htun, Jensenius & Nelson, 2019). For example, the U.S. government takes discrimination cases seriously by enacting Title VII. In addition, public administration has got associated with issues of gender discrimination against female job applicants as most government institutions only hire a small percentage of female employees. Due to rampant discrimination, legal issues have resulted in lawsuits against employers either by individuals or human rights groups and activists.

Human resource discrimination laws seek to reduce and eliminate discrimination based on race, sex, religion, disability, and ethnicity in public and private sectors. Some discrimination practices include bias in compensation, harassment at the workplace, job assignment, and termination, among others. All recruiters in government and other sectors must hold to the principles of equal employment opportunities enshrined in Title VII (Htun et al., 2019). The Act does affect not only employers and employment agencies but also labor organizations. Generally, discrimination practices have raised few legal cases about human resource management and public administration in the recent past.

Hively v. Ivy Tech Community college

The case involved an associate professor and Ivy Tech community college, where the complainant was the associate professor. Hively had faced discrimination due to sexual orientation that cost her six jobs in the past. According to the plaintiff, the case got prompted by constant bias due to sexual orientation. 

Facts

The associate professor was a lesbian, among the sexual orientations recognized in the constitution. The associate professor sought the interpretation of Title VII provisions concerning rejection in six employment opportunities (Smith, 2017). She got also denied the renewal of her contract after it expired due to her sexual orientation. Discrimination based on sexual orientation was a developing trend in the U.S. human resource practices in public administration. Hively declared her sexual orientation, which significantly affected her job at the Ivy Tech community college. Hively's case became the first to be determined by the 7th circuit appeal court, consequently enacting sexual discrimination provisions in Title VII.

Decision

The 7th Circuit court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation got prohibited in Title VII of the Act. The court also recommended that all H.R. managers be told about the case to prevent developing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The ruling got based on Title VII, which states the illegalities in H.R. practice that amount to discrimination (Smith, 2017). The decision of the 7th circuit court was the best as far as discrimination cases are concerned. Discrimination practices have become a growing trend in human resource practices. Most employers did not see a big deal since they believed that H.R. practices such as hiring, compensation, termination, or training of employees could not be equally implemented (Htun et al., 2019). However, the court decided to refer to Title VII to remind all H.R. practitioners and organizations of the essence of equal employment opportunities.

Solution

Discrimination Issues in H.R. management in public administration have become a growing trend that needs to get closely examined. Among other solutions, the federal government needs to enact employment policies that compel H.R. managers to take an oath to uphold employment laws (Htun et al., 2019). Before any organization can get an H.R. management license, they need to sign an agreement with the government never to practice discrimination in their employment practice. All employers need to accept the responsibility of equal employment opportunities based on the law. Generally, the government should be intense in applying various employment laws such as Title VII, which prohibits discrimination.

In addition, the college needs to formulate employment policies that guide their H.R. department and job applicants alike. Employment policies will be able to show job applicants conditions they need to meet for every job they apply for. The policies also need to state exemptions under which Title VII and other employment Acts do not apply (Htun et al., 2019). For example, the college can state that every job applicant must meet to get considered for the job on their job advertisement criteria. However, all employment policies must adhere to the standards set by the EEOC and various employment Acts that guide hiring, firing, compensation, promotions, and benefits. Therefore, Ivy community college needs to publicize its employment policies to avoid future lawsuits.

Conclusion

Hively versus Ivy Tech community college is a perfect example of discrimination practices witnessed in most institutions in public administration. Hively reported missed opportunities plus failure to renew her part-time contract job due to sexual orientation. The 7th circuit found it unethical and discriminatory of the institution to violate the law. The court cited Title VII parts that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, religion, age, and nationality. Therefore, the court decision warns public institutions to restrain discrimination practices since they are against the law. 

The city of Venice v. James Williamson

Mr. Williamson got allegedly subjected to racial discrimination at his workplace at the city of Venice Parks division. The justice department intervened to settle the case where Mr. Williamson got subjected to illegitimate disciplinary actions because of his race (U.S. DOJ, 2020). However, the City of Venice failed to justify its actions against Williamson, leading to his dismissal.

Facts

Mr. James Williamson was the only black working for City Venice's public works division. Mr. Williamson got subjected to various unwarranted treatment by the management of the City of Venice based on racial orientation. Some actions include unpaid suspensions, unnecessary disciplinary actions, and termination. The Justice department observed that the City of Venice violated the provisions of Title VII, which prohibits any form of discrimination based on sex, race, age, ethnicity, or disability, among others (U.S. DOJ, 2020). Mr. Williamson got subjected to harsh working conditions compared to white workers. The Florida district court established that Mr. Williamson got subjected to disciplinary actions nine times in two years and got reprimanded three times in one day. The same actions never got imposed on any white worker that flouted any employment contract provisions.

Decision

The Justice Department followed the case of Mr. Williamson and the City of Venice and established that there was a violation of Title VII. The Act prohibits discrimination in human resource practices such as hiring, firing, compensation, disciplinary, and training (Htun et al., 2019). The justice department referred to equal employment opportunity provisions based on Title VII and ruled in favor of Mr. Williamson. The court decided that the City of Venice to award Mr. Williamson $195,000 for lost wages and compensatory damages (U.S DOJ, 2020). The decision by the Justice Department was a good move to help abolish discrimination at workplaces based on race. The U.S. has struggled with the challenge of racial discrimination since most whites feel they are a superior race to others.

Generally, the court decision affirms the commitment of the federal government to fight against all forms of discrimination in the workplace and ensure that everyone gets equal employment opportunities. Unfortunately, most black Americans endure racial discrimination instigated by their white employers at the workplace (Htun et al., 2019). Unfortunately, the government seems relaxed in dealing with racial discrimination even though the U.S. stands for equality and social justice. Therefore, the court decision was a significant pointer toward preventing racial discrimination faced by non-native Americans. The decision was also good in enhancing the transparent criminal justice system by the courts.

Solution

Racial discrimination in employment in the U.S. has been a critical form of discrimination that most institutions and corporations struggle to avert. Mr. Williamson v. the City of Venice case reaffirms the scenario that blacks face in the hands of white employers (Htun et al., 2019). The Florida district court has emphasized the need for H.R. managers to establish anti-discrimination policies that guide their operations. As a result, the city of Venice can adopt policies anchored on equal employment opportunities as established by Title VII and EEOC. In addition, human resource managers need to be trained on anti-discrimination policies to ensure that they do not practice unlawful employment practices under Title VII.

Conclusion

The lawsuit between the Justice Department and the City of Venice confirms what most employers in public administration practice against other races. The Justice Department established that Mr. Williamson, the only black employee at the Park department, got subjected to punitive working conditions compared to his white counterparts. As a result, the court decided that the City of Venice awarded Mr. Williamson $195,000 in lost wages and damages. The decision was the best to help prevent discriminatory practices in the workplace, as witnessed in Williamson's case. Racial discrimination is generally a common practice in most organizations in the U.S. However, through stringent anti-discrimination policies and practices, it can get prevented. Therefore, racial discrimination at the workplace should be outlawed entirely through commitment by employers to ant-discrimination laws enactment.

Tudor v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Rachael Tudor filed a lawsuit on gender-based discrimination against Southeastern Oklahoma State University (Wiessner, 2021). The complainant transited from male to female, which affected the university administration's chance of extension of tenure. The action of the university to terminate her contract amounted to sexual discrimination.

Facts

The university professor shifted gender from male to female, becoming the bone of contention between her and Southeastern Oklahoma State University. The management did not extend Tudor's tenure at the university due to her sexual orientation (Weissner, 2021). Various employment laws such as Title VII, the pregnancy discrimination Act, and the Equal Pay Act prohibit employers from employment discrimination. In addition, employers must adhere to the equal employment opportunities provisions stipulated by the EEOC to ensure that all workers get treated equally (Htun, 2019). The Southeastern Oklahoma State University did not have any legal basis for why they should not extend Tudor's tenure. The court favored Tudor in its ruling about her tenure extension crisis and dismal by the university.

Tudor was a prolific English professor that held a prime position at the university. Supposed she had not shifted her gender from male to female, and it could not have affected her tenure. The decision by the university's administration to refuse to extend her tenure and ultimately terminate her contract got based on sexual discrimination (Weissner, 2021). The court held that Tudor could have got granted tenure if she remained in her male state. The university's president refused to comment on the case, alleging the ongoing litigation. The department of justice filed the lawsuit on behalf of Tudor in 2015, considering sex discrimination that got displayed in the whole saga. Although the department of justice settled with the university, Tudor proposed pursuing the case until she won and got an award in damages amounting to $1 m.

Decision

After years of legal battles, the court decided to reinstate Tudor at Oklahoma State University. The decision favored the English professor against the university that tried to claim issues with academic records against the professor (Weissner, 2021). The court rejected an application by the university against the plaintiff's reinstatement back to her tenure, citing financial constraints. The 10th circuit court observed that the evidence presented by Tudor against the university was sufficient for a jury to rule in her favor. In addition, the court established that Tudor was more experienced than other professors in her department and therefore warranted her tenure reinstatement. Generally, after back and forth between the university and the judges on the possibility of reinstatement, Tudor got reinstated and awarded damages up to $1 m, although she demanded more.

Solution

Employment laws are what guide the H.R. practices in the public administration system. Every institution and organization need to establish clear employment policies that form part of employment contracts that all employees must sign. However, the employment policies must consider equal employment opportunities for all people regardless of their sexual orientation, race, color, ethnicity, or nationality (Htun et al., 2019). Sexual discrimination has been a significant concern in H.R. in public administration in the U.S. Some companies get to the extent of restricting the hiring of females in prime positions. The solution needed to curb sexual discrimination is to train H.R. managers on various employment laws that prohibit discrimination.

In addition, institutions need to establish grounds upon which employees can get denied opportunities based on logical conclusions. There are general exemptions that can be applied as far as discrimination is concerned (Htun et al., 2019). For example, there might be a situation where employment and equality acts do not apply. When an employee is not qualified for the job and gets denied, the case cannot get treated as discrimination. In some cases, where the nature of the job requires physical capabilities that the potential employee does not possess, the employer is permitted to deny them the opportunity. Therefore, for the university to avoid lawsuits on discrimination in the future, the management must establish clear guidelines to be followed in different circumstances.

Conclusion

The English professor pursued a legal suit against the university for failure to grant her tenure. Oklahoma State University countered the lawsuit based on extreme hostility and financial constraints. After years of legal battles, the court determined that the university must award Tudor compensation of $1 m and reinstate her tenure. The court argued that Tudor lost her tenure due to her transition from male to female gender. Therefore, the university's decision amounted to sexual discrimination against Tudor, a tenured English professor. Tudor v. Southeastern Oklahoma State University case confirms the state of employment practice in public administration that needs to get redefined. Therefore, the lawsuit emphasizes the need for H.R. managers and their institutions to get familiarized with discrimination policies to eliminate sexual-based discrimination.

References

Htun, M., Jensenius, F. R., & Nelson-Nuñez, J. (2019). Gender-discriminatory laws and women’s economic agency. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 26(2), 193-222. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxy042 

 Smith A, J.D, (2017). Top 10 Employment Cases of 2017 Reviewed. LGBT and ADA issues figure prominently among year's most relevant decisions. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/conference-today/pages/2017/top-10-employment-cases-of-2017-reviewed.aspx

U.S DOJ, (2020). Justice Department Settles Race Discrimination Case Against a Florida City Securing $195,000 in Lost Wages and Damages. U.S Department of justice. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-race-discrimination-case-against-florida-city-securing-195000-lost

Wiessner, D, (2021). University must rehire transgender professor, says 10th Circuit. https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/university-must-rehire-transgender-professor-says-10th-circuit-2021-09-13/