Case study: Local 28 vs. EEOC
Case study: Local 28 vs. EEOC
GB541: Employment Law
Local 28 vs. EEOC
1. Is it clear to you why a court would be able to include in its remedies those who were not directly discriminated against by any employer?
Yes, it is clear to me how and why the judge was able to include those who were not specificity directed by the company’s actions to be included in the outcome of the ruling. Title VII was put in place to help protect minorities in the workplace and those in search of employment. This Act which was passed in 1964, prohibits discriminations in regards to the process of hiring, firing, and training, promoting and disciple along with the advertisement of open positions. This Act also includes any workplace decisions that are based on an employees or an applicant’s race, gender, national origin, or religion. The Title VII Act goes as far as including hiring, pay, and the terms of employment, available training layoffs and benefits. The Local 28 Steel Metal Workers had their hiring and promotion system worded and set up so that only white males would be interested, accepted and feel comfortable in applying for the apprenticeship position along with the ability to move up the union ladder into the union and journeymen position. The goal of the apprenticeship was to find themselves in the local 28 union. This process was set to up to discourage minority’s (specifically black males) from applying. Thus the sheet metal group local 28 was not only in violation of the Title VII Act but also the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), The court system (attempted) to step in to make the sheet metal workers union of local 28 compliant with the (EEOC) and the Title VII Act without success as eighteen years the steel workers were still not compliant with the courts orders.
2. If you were the court and still trying to get the union to comply after 18 years after the fact, what would you have done?
For starters I would immediately impose fines.
GB541: Employment Law
Local 28 vs. EEOC
1. Is it clear to you why a court would be able to include in its remedies those who were not directly discriminated against by any employer?
Yes, it is clear to me how and why the judge was able to include those who were not specificity directed by the company’s actions to be included in the outcome of the ruling. Title VII was put in place to help protect minorities in the workplace and those in search of employment. This Act which was passed in 1964, prohibits discriminations in regards to the process of hiring, firing, and training, promoting and disciple along with the advertisement of open positions. This Act also includes any workplace decisions that are based on an employees or an applicant’s race, gender, national origin, or religion. The Title VII Act goes as far as including hiring, pay, and the terms of employment, available training layoffs and benefits. The Local 28 Steel Metal Workers had their hiring and promotion system worded and set up so that only white males would be interested, accepted and feel comfortable in applying for the apprenticeship position along with the ability to move up the union ladder into the union and journeymen position. The goal of the apprenticeship was to find themselves in the local 28 union. This process was set to up to discourage minority’s (specifically black males) from applying. Thus the sheet metal group local 28 was not only in violation of the Title VII Act but also the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), The court system (attempted) to step in to make the sheet metal workers union of local 28 compliant with the (EEOC) and the Title VII Act without success as eighteen years the steel workers were still not compliant with the courts orders.
2. If you were the court and still trying to get the union to comply after 18 years after the fact, what would you have done?
For starters I would immediately impose fines.
References: Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2009). Employment law for business. (6 ed., pp. 247-249). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.