This agency reviews affirmative action programs and addresses complaints, violations or issues with non-compliance (Skrentny, 2001).
The nondiscrimination section of the executive order applies to all contractors and subcontractors with federal contracts over $10,000 in any one year. The Executive Order also requires that any non-construction contractor with federal contracts over $50,000 and over fifty employees must establish a written affirmative action plan within 120 days of initiation of the contract (Carrington, McCue, Brooks, 2000).
Federal regulations specify that this written plan must include a detailed analysis of the employer's workforce by race, ethnicity, and sex as well as an analysis of any underrepresentation of particular groups (Skrentny, 2001). If an underutilization is found, the employer is charged with determining if the representation of particular groups is lower in their workplace than in the geographic area and if so they will need to develop an affirmative action plan with targeted goals to address this disproportion (Skrentny, 2001). These goals may include targeted recruitment strategies to increase the applicant pool. This plan must be completed annually and submitted if requested during the course of an audit.
Failure to comply with the legislation can result in enforced sanctions by the federal court. These may take the form of imposed diversity hiring goals, monetary fines, discontinuation of contracts, and being banned from applying for future contracts (Kelly & Dobin, 1998). Affirmative action plans allow an employer to set goals that signify areas that they will target their affirmative action efforts. This is not the same thing as court imposed quotas, numerical requirements for hiring of a particular group, which can be a sanction for intentional violations. These goals signify a dedication to implementing strategies to locate qualified candidates of a particular group, i.e. minorities, women, etc. This plan is developed in conjunction with demographics that identify the number of qualified minorities and women in the...
Should a company make a good faith effort at recruitment of these identified groups and turn up unsuccessful, they will not be sanctioned for non-compliance.
Additional legislation, including, the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, added several amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such as the inclusion of state and local governments. According to Lee (1999), the act also mandated that federal departments and agencies prepare affirmative action plans for their employees as well as the introduction of a minority recruitment program that targeted underutilized persons in individual federal job categories. These plans were also subject to monitoring by the EEOC and must include specific indications of underrepresentation of each group coupled with targeted goals that can objectively measure progress (Lee, 1999).
The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 expanded the scope of the EEOC oversight allowing both the EEOC and the individual employee to sue companies for discrimination (Kelly & Dobin, 1998). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 furthered this movement with the provision of monetary damages to victims in cases of deliberate discrimination. Enforcement efforts have continued to grow and monitoring of contract compliance is also more actively engaged upon. If implemented correctly, affirmative action and EEO should not create reverse discrimination as some fear but should level the playing field so that all persons are regarded for their individual skills sets rather than any grouping based on outside factors.
References
Carrington, W.J., & McCue, K., Brooks, P. (2000). Using establishment size to measure the impact of Title VII and affirmative action. The Journal of Human Resources, 35(3), 503-523.
Kelly, E., & Dobin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(7), 960-984.
Lee, R.A. (1999). The evolution of affirmative action. Public Personnel Management, 28(3),
393-409.
Skrentny, J.D. (Ed.). (2001). Color…
