Week 3 Indivdual Assignment The Shoe Store Incident 4 6 15
Carlos Stakely
University Of Phoenix
HRM/546 Human Resource Law
Thomas Hartnett
The Shoe Store Incident
April 06, 2015
This paper will show that this scenario provides a case for gender discrimination. Gender discrimination is illegal under Title VII (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007). In addition, this paper will show what legal and ethical issues arise in this case. Furthermore, this paper will show what Bob should do in this case.
By using the female employee versus the male employee to serve the customer the company would be in violation of Title VII for gender discrimination. Title VII laws regarding gender cover the full scope of the employment relationship which describes that gender may not be the basis of any decision related to employment unless gender is used as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). Customer preference is not a legitimate and protected reason to treat otherwise qualified employees differently based on gender.
Additionally, allowing the female employee to assist the customer over the male employee would be in violation of the store’s rotation policy. The policy states that each working day, two employees work in the store; one working the front and one working the back. Rotation occurs on a daily basis in order to disperse commissions fairly. Since this is company policy, there is no flexibility to change that policy and to rotation schedule clearly states that it is the male employee’s turn to earn commission.
Discrimination based on gender is illegal and not in keeping with good business practices of efficiency, maximizing resources, and avoiding unnecessary liability.
Title VII Issues
Discrimination comes in all shapes and sizes, and managers have to be careful not to cross the line and do the wrong thing. Companies do not want lawsuits for discrimination or anything else. The store’s best customer, Imelda, probably did not intend to offend anyone nor did she probably know that she was discriminating
University Of Phoenix
HRM/546 Human Resource Law
Thomas Hartnett
The Shoe Store Incident
April 06, 2015
This paper will show that this scenario provides a case for gender discrimination. Gender discrimination is illegal under Title VII (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2007). In addition, this paper will show what legal and ethical issues arise in this case. Furthermore, this paper will show what Bob should do in this case.
By using the female employee versus the male employee to serve the customer the company would be in violation of Title VII for gender discrimination. Title VII laws regarding gender cover the full scope of the employment relationship which describes that gender may not be the basis of any decision related to employment unless gender is used as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). Customer preference is not a legitimate and protected reason to treat otherwise qualified employees differently based on gender.
Additionally, allowing the female employee to assist the customer over the male employee would be in violation of the store’s rotation policy. The policy states that each working day, two employees work in the store; one working the front and one working the back. Rotation occurs on a daily basis in order to disperse commissions fairly. Since this is company policy, there is no flexibility to change that policy and to rotation schedule clearly states that it is the male employee’s turn to earn commission.
Discrimination based on gender is illegal and not in keeping with good business practices of efficiency, maximizing resources, and avoiding unnecessary liability.
Title VII Issues
Discrimination comes in all shapes and sizes, and managers have to be careful not to cross the line and do the wrong thing. Companies do not want lawsuits for discrimination or anything else. The store’s best customer, Imelda, probably did not intend to offend anyone nor did she probably know that she was discriminating