Legislation and court decisions in equal opportunity employment

Equal Opportunity

The most important piece of legislation concerning equal opportunity is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act, in particular Title VII, provides the framework for several equal opportunity acts to follow, and established that workplaces should be free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin (U.S. EEOC, 2014). The legal framework of this act has been extended with several other acts that prohibit discrimination against other groups. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities, subject to certain provisions. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is an amendment to Title VII that specifically forbids discrimination against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth or a medical condition related to pregnancy. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 added age to the list of things against which discrimination is forbidden under Title VII. A recent addition is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of genetic information (EEOC, 2009).

These acts have been tested many times in the courts, and court decisions have refined how the acts, especially the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One such decision was Griggs v Duke Power, which supported the idea that discrimination comes not only in the form of direct discrimination, but in employer practices that have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women, and that such practices would also be outlawed under Title VII. The Griggs ruling was later curtailed in Wards Cove Packing v Antonio, which switched the burden of proof to the plaintiff to establish that employer practices constitute unjustified discrimination -- the plaintiff now needs to be an expert on the company's operations to make the case.

Wygant v Jackson Board of Education was a ruling that enforced that senior white workers could not be laid off in order to protect the jobs of less senior black workers. This decision highlighted that a non-discriminatory workplace should be colorblind, not one built on the idea of quotas. This idea was furthered with United States v Paradise, which held that one-for-one promotion quotas of black and white workers ran against Title VII by creating an atmosphere where promotion was based neither on tenure nor merit. A conflicting ruling, however, came with Johnson v Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, which allowed for gender to a key determinant in promotion. These conflicting rulings do not appear to have been resolved. CRA protections on the basis of gender have required further legislation for strengthening, including the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which strengthened worker protections that were eroded in Ledbetter v Goodyear.

Another key case was Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld that sexual harassment is a form of job discrimination under Title VII. This meant that not only was such harassment potentially criminal, but that it was a violation of civil rights with respect to a fair and equal workplace. This made sexual harassment a much more dangerous activity in which to engage, at least as far as the consequences of having it proven are concerned.

The ADEA was undercut by Hazen Paper v Biggins, which allowed that factors correlating to age, such as pension status, can be used to discriminate against employees. The ADEA was further weakened in Kimel v Florida, which held that age discrimination is not always irrational and therefore can be used when it is rational. Bragdon v Abbott added HIV-positive status to the list of disabilities for the ADA. Sutton v United Airlines and Murphy v United Parcel Service established that mitigating circumstances such as medication must be taken into consideration in ADA cases.

Case: The United States Forest Service is a federal agency with a large number of employees, therefore it is subject to all federal civil rights statutes. Boulden is both African-American and female, both groups with protected status under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was clear that Boulden suffered from discrimination and that this discrimination adversely affected both her working conditions and her future employment status. She would have had a successful claim with the EEOC.

In essence, there were multiple failings here in terms of how the discrimination was handled. Certainly, Boulden could have and should have taken her case to the EEOC directly, instead of trying to work internally. If there is any evidence at all, this case would have been a slam dunk for any civil rights lawyer. So she must take responsibility for quitting instead of pursuing legal remedy. One only receives legal remedy when one pushes for it.

The Human Resources Department at Hoosier National Forest and at the National Forest Service were both culpable. They had received information about this discrimination and completely failed to act on it. This failing exposed the organization to legal action -- had Boulden pursued her case, she would have won and that could have been both humiliating and costly to the USFS. It is critical that the USFS needed to have stronger policies with respect to investigating discrimination claims, because better policies would have delivered better results and the organization would not have been so exposed.