Different Legal Standards-Based on Business Size

EEOC Small vs. Large The laws, standards and structures regarding fair hiring practices have been the main purview of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) since its inception. Indeed, any instances of disparate treatment (overt racism) or disparate impact (tactics that may or may not be intentional but that hurt protected classes nonetheless) should be monitored and dealt with. However, not all of the structures and frameworks the EEOC uses are uncontroversial and clear-cut.

The recent mandates and suggestions about hiring people with criminal histories including felons is a good example. However, the different treatment under the law for smaller businesses vs. larger business makes a lot more sense and is fairly easy to justify (EEOC, 2014). EEOC Small vs. Large The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has as its central mission leveling the playing field for people in protected statuses such as women, blacks, Hispanics and, as of late, even prior felons and disabled people.

However, the way in which the EEOC treats small businesses vs. large business differs quite a bit as either a different proverbial yardstick is used for small business or a small business might even be exempt from a certain standard or rule. A different standard is often applied to a large business as compared to a small business. However, while this may seem to be wrong-headed, there is a reason for it and it does make sense (EEOC, 2014).

Analysis As one might imagine, the main reason for holding smaller and larger businesses to a different standard is size. The standard actually applies to all smaller or even more specialized organizations that are non-profit or even governmental in nature. Per the EEOC's website, a "small business" is defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act. A "small organization" is any non-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in their field.

A small governmental jurisdiction are governmetns of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts and/or special districts that have an overall population of less than 50,000. When it comes to the businesses in particular, what defines a "small business" actually varies by jurisdiction so that is why a flat number is not used in all instances.

The variance for smaller organizations is granted by what is known as the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) whereby smaller entities are not required to follow the same rules and/or standards (at least not to the same extent) as their larger and more robust brethren (EEOC, 2014). The main reason for the different treatment is to prevent an undue burden from being placed on smaller entities in terms of who could or should be hired and why.

The economic impact of forcing a smaller business to comply with certain ratios and the concepts of disparate impact whereby the minority levels are looked at in terms of percentage is something that might not reasonably be followed by a smaller business. A primary reason for this different standard is mathematics. Let us say that blacks make up 15% of the population. For an employee that has 1000 employees, there should roughly be 150 blacks or partially black people at that employer as that would be a representative portion of that area's population.

If that ratio is not met, then the reasons should be looked into. There may or may not be an illegal reason for that ratio not being met but the EEOC would want to make sure that the employer was not doing something improper. However, with an employer that only has four people, having one person that was black would meet the standard but having none would be a fat zero.

However, there is a much higher likelihood with a business of that size only having white (or other non-black) employees and the chances of something nefarious going on is much lesser because there are only four hires that could be illegal rather than up to a thousand, as shown in the other example (EEOC, 2014) Another factor that contributes to the above is that some areas are fairly self-segregated for one reason or another. There are towns that are heavily populated with black, Latino or other minorities.

A good example of that would be Atlanta which has a very large black population. The same could be said of Detroit or Kansas City, MO. However, there are other towns that have very few blacks in comparison for one reason or another. For example, Denver has a black population a bit lower than the national average but their Latino population is quite large by comparison to national averages.

As such, there would be a shade less blacks and a lot more Latinos, at least based on simple mathematical models, than in other areas of the country. However, it is also true that blacks and Latinos are typically more disadvantaged than whites and other races and that is taken into account when looking at the figures. It is disparities like these that the EEOC and other similar agencies are trying to correct (EEOC, 2014).

Given the above, laws should be different for both smaller and larger businesses and geographical areas and educational attainment levels by race are also something that cannot and should not be ignored. In addition, just because there is a racial disparity in hiring (disparate impact) does not mean something overtly racist and/or otherwise improper going on. However, things that can lead to improper hiring ratios are often not intentional but impact racial minorities or even women improperly.

Examples include intelligence tests and other measures that have no bearing on future job performance for the job in question. The EEOC and the Supreme Court have consistently held that the use of such tests, intentional or not, is not permissible and employers need to ensure that there is a clear linkage between the.