Federal contract compliance: the Rehabilitation Act and VEVRAA

Federal Contract Compliance and EEO

Any company in the United States that does business with the federal government as a contractor or subcontractor and that has more than 50 employees must have an Affirmative Action Plan (AAP). This plan is designed to ensure that the company is in compliance with the laws and regulations that govern affirmative action within the U.S. However, there is more to affirmative action than just the government. In the private (business) sector, there have also been issues with affirmative action - some of which have gone so far as the supreme court. Two of the most notable areas where Supreme Court cases have been seen are the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act. Both of these Acts were part of lawsuits that made their way through the court system until the Supreme Court tackled them in an effort to correct problems that were being faced by individuals claiming discrimination for issues over which they had no control.

The Rehabilitation Act

This particular Act prohibits discrimination against anyone who has a disability (Leuchovius, 2001). Coleman v. Schwarzenegger was a Supreme Court case that came to light under the Rehabilitation Act, because it was alleged that mental health care that was being provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was unconstitutional. Eventually the Court found that unconstitutional practices that violated the Eighth Amendment were taking place, and the Defendant was given a time limit in which to create and implement a plan that provided true constitutionality when it came to mental health care in the state of California Department of Corrections. The case was similar to others that were launched around the same time, and was actually merged with Plata v. Schwarzenegger.

The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act

One case that fell under VEVRAA was Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk. This case came about as a response to a Freedom of Information Act request, and the veteran in this case was ultimately unsuccessful in his allegation that his former employer had violated the law. However, many veterans each year are helped by VEVRAA, which is designed to ensure that they receive fair treatment and that they are allowed to adjust to the workplace and get the assistance they need in order to be productive members of society (VEVRAA, 2011). That can be very difficult for people who return from war, and this is made into more of an issue for Vietnam veterans because many of them were not welcomed home. Some of them are still mistreated by those who do not feel that the U.S. should have ever been in Vietnam - but this was not the fault of the soldiers.

HRM Policies and Procedures Regarding Affirmative Action

Since the creation of Affirmative Action, HRM policies and procedures have changed (Felsberg, 2005). Companies have been made more aware of differences between individuals who apply for a job, and how those differences can (and in some cases must) be accepted and utilized. If a person is turned away from a job for a reason that falls under Affirmative Action, the company must be able to show why it was justified in that decision (Felsberg, 2005). In other words, if a company turns someone away and it can be proven that he or she physically or mentally could not do the job, even with accommodation, that is an acceptable reason to refuse employment to that person. If the job-seeker was turned away simply because the employer did not want to hire "someone like that," a lawsuit could be the next step for the person who was denied a job at the company based on Affirmative Action guidelines.

Conclusion

Some companies attempt to make Affirmative Action a grey area, but it is actually quite black and white. The federal government has set guidelines that must be followed by companies that fall into certain categories. If those companies fail to follow the guidelines correctly, they can be penalized - sometimes quite severely. For companies that are subject to Affirmative Action and EEO rules and regulations, erring on the side of caution is the best choice. Also, it is important for these companies to seek answers to things that they do not understand, so that they can ensure they are following the rules correctly. It is easy to get incorrect information by just asking around to other companies, and is a much better choice to go to the source and contact the government in order to get answers regarding any EEO concerns or questions. Companies that make sure they are in compliance have nothing to worry about, even if a lawsuit is brought against them.