Discrimination and promotion denial: the case of Robert Harris at HR Products

Human Resources Management

Mr. Robert Harris, being a respectable and hardworking employee of the HR Products, was facing difficulties despite his exhibition of ability, craft and understanding of the job. His first refusal for a promotion did not make him grumpy or slacken his work (as the V.P. seemed to point the obvious which he had expected: lack of educational background in the sphere); instead, he tried again and again to get a promotion which many felt he deserved till it became evident to him that it may be more than his personal qualities, traits and work ethics that could have driven the undying and unjustified refusals for promotion.

He felt a portentous sense of being "Discrimination" against him from the higher authorities, mainly the Vice President, of HR Products. "Discrimination" means being treated differently or unfairly. Discrimination in employment is illegal when the different or unfair treatment is based on a personal characteristic or status, such as sex or race, which is protected under anti-discrimination laws (Corby and White, 1999). He felt that his colleagues and contemporaries over the years of his employment had received promotions despite them sharing the same deficiency which had been the cause of his initial refusal by the V.P. For a promotion. He protested thereof.

Key Elements of the Problem:

The key element of this problem as is obvious from the statement above is, firstly the academic background of Mr. Harris and the attitude thereof of the Vice President of HR Products towards the promotion requests put forth by him. Another element that might have escalated the problem and provoked Mr. Harris to take some sort of action was when one of his friends in the organization expressed the V.P.'s remarks of his employment being "... A mistake in the first place," as well as the requests of certain customers on the behalf of Mr. Harris that brought forth yet another stale response from the Vice President.

Stakeholder Analysis:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), forbids discrimination established on "race, color, sex (including sexual harassment), national origin, religion, and pregnancy." Pertaining to that Mr. Harris, if felt he was being discriminated against could take up serious action against the discriminator.

The reaction of Mr. Harris to his interpretation of being treated with discrimination may or may not affect the company's performance in the long run. His action to take up the responsibility to build a union might weaken or change the position of the Vice president as well as the president. The union formed might be able to successfully strengthen the position of the employees in it and empower them to demand their due rights if they feel that they are being deprived off them. The actions of the union will have to be taken seriously by the higher authorities of the company because if their needs are not met with, they might protest and carry out a strike which will affect the functioning of the company and hence the profits in the wider spectrum.

Options for Resolving the Problem:

The Hotline Complaints System

The Hotline complaints systems is a great process where the individual who has been wronged can anonymously place his complaint on the internet and testify to any violations of law and regulations, including fraud, misconduct, conflict of interest, misuse of funds, or endangering public health or safety. The whole circumstance, directed by the USDA Office of the Inspector General, of the action doesn't take more then 6 months and the individual can report it at any time (Richard, 1998).

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

Merit Systems Protection Board could be another way to go to resolve the issue with official effectiveness. The MSPB is mainly responsible for dealing with issues like unemployment, ineligibility of employees for a rank, retirement, or deferment. It's an efficient process that can be used by the majority of employees who are experiencing any of the above mentioned discrepancies. The MSPB works correspondingly with the EEO counselor when the matter involves job/work/employee discrimination, as is the case here. The advantage of employing this process is that the aim to get a certain consequence is undivided along with exclusive attention given to the problem at hand. Another advantage is that the process is quick and the matter is resolved with a year pertaining that the affected individual employs this process within 30 days of the incident (Richard, 1998).

Early Intervention Program (EIP)

One of the quickest ways to get some form of positive reaction form the authorities could be the application of an Early Intervention Program by the affected employee. It could show the willingness of the employee to resolve the matter in a non-antagonist fashion and let an unbiased organization or individual intervene and decide the matter. There is not timeline for a reaction by the affected personnel and the process is very quick (Noon, 2001).

Employment Complaints Process (ECP)

Employment Complaints Process is an efficient way of solving any discrimination issues that an employee might face in a work environment from anyone: a colleague or higher authorities. This process can be employed by any existing or previous employee or job applicant, and the EEO counselor intervenes providing all the advantages of a precise unofficial/official, conventional/unconventional procedure that resolves the matter within a space of 2 years. Of course the individual is asking for the intervention has to take action and employ an EEO councilor within 45 days of the discriminating incident (Richard, 1998).

Investigation

The Commission upon getting your compliant form or request will then review it and decide the best form of proceeding needed to resolve the issue. If for some reason the Commission cannot intervene with consequence then the individual will receive a letter explaining why the Commission cannot help them. If the Commission decides to take up your compliant then an efficient investigation will be carried out by the Investigation/Conciliation Official. He will look into exactly what happened taking in all the angles, as well as, what answers corresponded with your complaint. Interviews and witnesses may be a necessity for the whole process to have weight. If the investigator feels that you compliant is not predisposed towards a constructive result pertaining to the evidence gathered, then your request will be declined. However, if there is enough evidence and support for your complaint then the Commission will intervene and strive to get an agreement form both parties involved, this process is called conciliation (Richard, 1998).

Conciliation

The Investigation/Conciliation Official employed by the Commission will try to get the two parties involved, i.e. The employee discriminated against and the discriminator, to agree to certain conclusions that are deemed best by the Commission. This can be done by arranging a Conciliation Conference and use that as a platform for open, behind closed doors and candid talk between the two parties, each bringing a third independent entity. Of course, either one or both the parties have no compulsion to either confirm or invalidate the initial protest (Richard, 1998).

Report

If the conference reaps no result and neither party can come up with a unitary agreement, or the commission feels like such a meeting will be unnecessary as there is enough evidence of discrimination by the party reported then they can directly forward the complaint to the Federal Attorney-General, whereof the complaint will be addressed in the Parliament where the actions of both parties will be taken into consideration and then judged thereof (Richard, 1998).