Streeter Et Al. V. Ford Motor Company
3/14/2014
Case Study
Columbia Southern University
Legal accusations of race, gender and age bias was bases for the 2001 class action lawsuit of Streeter et al. vs. Ford Motor Co and Siegel et al. vs. Ford Motor Co. for possible age bias. The legal accusations of gender and race claims were dismissed in the Streeter lawsuit but age was still a legal accusation. Ford Motor Co. denied any legal accusations of wrong actions in either lawsuit (The Union Times, 2001). “The reverse-discrimination lawsuits claimed that Ford 's employee evaluation system preferred candidates of diversity -- mainly younger women and minorities -- and that a large percentage of older, white men were given low grades, resulting in loss of their raises or promotions. Ford Motor Co. agreed to pay $10.5 million in settlement for both cases” (The Union Times, 2001).
“Organizations establish performance management systems to meet three extensive bases: strategic, administrative, and developmental purposes” (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2011, p. 226). The use of performance management systems in organizations allows them to keep the staff that is more productive, close-out on …show more content…
those less productive or not functioning as they should, and enhance their awareness and aptitude. These structures frequently demand the use of grading or ranking levels in which all staff is structured and labeled.
At many times these structures use percentages to rank those who are more productive at high ranks and those least at low ranks. According to The Union Times, Five percent of the company was evaluated when the system was put into pace in 2000. A, B, or C grades were given to employees. Employees receiving a C could lose bonuses and raises, and two back-to-back C 's would possibly result in termination. Those involved in the class believed that before the grading program, they had received approving evaluations. Because of the new system, those evaluated, got C 's while some women and minorities with less work history or experience received greater ranks
(2001).
Any type of discrimination is illegal. The use of these structures may have had good intentions, but the outcome was not. It resulted in a lawsuit. Employees of certain ages and races felt stereotyped. Disparate treatment and disparate impact were grounds for both lawsuits. Those involved in the Sigel case really believed the system put into place by Ford Motor Co. Jacques Nasser, Ford president and chief executive was used to affect some employees more than others. This shows how some organizations misuse and abuse systems to harm workers. Legally and ethically Ford Motor Co. system was damaging and inadequate. These systems should not be used to stereotype workers as seen in this case.
Works Cited
Badel, Julie. (2002). The cutback that cuts the wrong way: Older workers claim disparate impact. Vol:11,4. American Bar Association. http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2002-03-04/badel.html.
HR Guide (2012). EEO: Disparate impact. http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.html.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2011). Fundamentals of human resource management (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 73, 226.
The Union Times. (2001). Ford, plaintiffs settle class-action suits for $10.5 M. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/121901/bus_8129372.html.
Case Study
Columbia Southern University
Legal accusations of race, gender and age bias was bases for the 2001 class action lawsuit of Streeter et al. vs. Ford Motor Co and Siegel et al. vs. Ford Motor Co. for possible age bias. The legal accusations of gender and race claims were dismissed in the Streeter lawsuit but age was still a legal accusation. Ford Motor Co. denied any legal accusations of wrong actions in either lawsuit (The Union Times, 2001). “The reverse-discrimination lawsuits claimed that Ford 's employee evaluation system preferred candidates of diversity -- mainly younger women and minorities -- and that a large percentage of older, white men were given low grades, resulting in loss of their raises or promotions. Ford Motor Co. agreed to pay $10.5 million in settlement for both cases” (The Union Times, 2001).
“Organizations establish performance management systems to meet three extensive bases: strategic, administrative, and developmental purposes” (Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright, 2011, p. 226). The use of performance management systems in organizations allows them to keep the staff that is more productive, close-out on …show more content…
those less productive or not functioning as they should, and enhance their awareness and aptitude. These structures frequently demand the use of grading or ranking levels in which all staff is structured and labeled.
At many times these structures use percentages to rank those who are more productive at high ranks and those least at low ranks. According to The Union Times, Five percent of the company was evaluated when the system was put into pace in 2000. A, B, or C grades were given to employees. Employees receiving a C could lose bonuses and raises, and two back-to-back C 's would possibly result in termination. Those involved in the class believed that before the grading program, they had received approving evaluations. Because of the new system, those evaluated, got C 's while some women and minorities with less work history or experience received greater ranks
(2001).
Any type of discrimination is illegal. The use of these structures may have had good intentions, but the outcome was not. It resulted in a lawsuit. Employees of certain ages and races felt stereotyped. Disparate treatment and disparate impact were grounds for both lawsuits. Those involved in the Sigel case really believed the system put into place by Ford Motor Co. Jacques Nasser, Ford president and chief executive was used to affect some employees more than others. This shows how some organizations misuse and abuse systems to harm workers. Legally and ethically Ford Motor Co. system was damaging and inadequate. These systems should not be used to stereotype workers as seen in this case.
Works Cited
Badel, Julie. (2002). The cutback that cuts the wrong way: Older workers claim disparate impact. Vol:11,4. American Bar Association. http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2002-03-04/badel.html.
HR Guide (2012). EEO: Disparate impact. http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.html.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2011). Fundamentals of human resource management (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 73, 226.
The Union Times. (2001). Ford, plaintiffs settle class-action suits for $10.5 M. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/121901/bus_8129372.html.