Last Bastion of Discrimination
Analysis of “Why Looks Are the Last Bastion of Discrimination”
Over the years history has never the less succeed or prevailed when in relation to discrimination. The past half-century, the United States has expanded protections against discrimination to include race, religion, sex, age, disability and, in a growing number of jurisdictions, sexual orientations. “(pg.246)”
There is no precise law ruling out an employer from refusing to hire an applicant because the employer does not like how the applicant looks. An employer could not reject to hire a candidate based upon these conditions unless the employer could prove that a height or weight requirement was a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Although certain businesses claim that customers demand or expect a certain image based on the establishment or nature of the business. These expectations often influence an unbalanced playing field for employees and sometimes promote health disorders and other problems when in completion for jobs. When it comes to racial profiling we often seek justice of the law to prevail, but in some cases it’s the law that’s doing just the opposite. Based on past studies that mimicked legal procedures, unattractive people received lengthier sentences followed upon sexual characteristics and physical appearances.
To conclude my analysis of discrimination of looks, various federal, state, and local laws disallow discrimination against employees and job applicants in the relationships and circumstances of employment. In universal, the laws make it unlawful to treat applicants or employees less favorably or differently because they are included in certain threatened categories. This means all employment judgments should be based on legitimate business decisions.
Works Cited
Deborah L. Rhode, “Why Looks Are the Last Looks of Bastion of Discrimination: Patterns for Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. Laurie G.Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell. Ed. Boston. Bedford/St.
Over the years history has never the less succeed or prevailed when in relation to discrimination. The past half-century, the United States has expanded protections against discrimination to include race, religion, sex, age, disability and, in a growing number of jurisdictions, sexual orientations. “(pg.246)”
There is no precise law ruling out an employer from refusing to hire an applicant because the employer does not like how the applicant looks. An employer could not reject to hire a candidate based upon these conditions unless the employer could prove that a height or weight requirement was a bona fide occupational qualification for the job. Although certain businesses claim that customers demand or expect a certain image based on the establishment or nature of the business. These expectations often influence an unbalanced playing field for employees and sometimes promote health disorders and other problems when in completion for jobs. When it comes to racial profiling we often seek justice of the law to prevail, but in some cases it’s the law that’s doing just the opposite. Based on past studies that mimicked legal procedures, unattractive people received lengthier sentences followed upon sexual characteristics and physical appearances.
To conclude my analysis of discrimination of looks, various federal, state, and local laws disallow discrimination against employees and job applicants in the relationships and circumstances of employment. In universal, the laws make it unlawful to treat applicants or employees less favorably or differently because they are included in certain threatened categories. This means all employment judgments should be based on legitimate business decisions.
Works Cited
Deborah L. Rhode, “Why Looks Are the Last Looks of Bastion of Discrimination: Patterns for Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. Laurie G.Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell. Ed. Boston. Bedford/St.
Cited: Deborah L. Rhode, “Why Looks Are the Last Looks of Bastion of Discrimination: Patterns for Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide. Laurie G.Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell. Ed. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2012.246-249. Print. .