Laws against Discrimination at the Workplace
Q1: Describe methods and techniques in which employers can maximize organizational protection against affinity related litigation.
A1: Title VII does not afford any protection for affinity orientation discrimination. Where an employer could be involved in a lawsuit is when states have laws that prohibit affinity discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. With that said Employers should treat sexual orientation of its employees as irrelevant and only judge employees on the merit of their work performance. Employers may wish to add gays, lesbians, and transgender coverage to their antidiscrimination policies.
Where affinity groups in the workplace are concerned, employers can maximize organizational protection against affinity related litigation by treating all groups equally. What an employer does for one group it must do for all, especially when it seeks to encourage diversity in the work place. The employer should not give preferential treatment to one group as well as discriminate against a group of workers who claim some sort of affinity.
Employees of General Motors (GM) sued GM for refusing to sponsor a Christian employee affinity group. GM’s policy was to not sponsor any religion based affinity groups. GM was successful in defending against the lawsuit because it upheld its policy not to sponsor any religious affinity groups.
Source: http://www.hro.com/files/file/publications/HRO%20Newsletters/Employment%20Law/el0106.pdf
Q2: What are the factors an employee must demonstrate to present a prima facie case for national origin discrimination? Provide illustrative examples for each necessary factor.
A2: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In order for an employee to present a prima facie case for national origin discrimination, an employee would have to have prima facie evidence sufficient enough for a decision or verdict to be
A1: Title VII does not afford any protection for affinity orientation discrimination. Where an employer could be involved in a lawsuit is when states have laws that prohibit affinity discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. With that said Employers should treat sexual orientation of its employees as irrelevant and only judge employees on the merit of their work performance. Employers may wish to add gays, lesbians, and transgender coverage to their antidiscrimination policies.
Where affinity groups in the workplace are concerned, employers can maximize organizational protection against affinity related litigation by treating all groups equally. What an employer does for one group it must do for all, especially when it seeks to encourage diversity in the work place. The employer should not give preferential treatment to one group as well as discriminate against a group of workers who claim some sort of affinity.
Employees of General Motors (GM) sued GM for refusing to sponsor a Christian employee affinity group. GM’s policy was to not sponsor any religion based affinity groups. GM was successful in defending against the lawsuit because it upheld its policy not to sponsor any religious affinity groups.
Source: http://www.hro.com/files/file/publications/HRO%20Newsletters/Employment%20Law/el0106.pdf
Q2: What are the factors an employee must demonstrate to present a prima facie case for national origin discrimination? Provide illustrative examples for each necessary factor.
A2: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In order for an employee to present a prima facie case for national origin discrimination, an employee would have to have prima facie evidence sufficient enough for a decision or verdict to be