Human Resources Management Exam 1
Exam 1 - Short Cases
Exercising Strategy: Home Depot’s Bumpy Road to Equality
1) Under the circumstances presented in this case, Home Depot was likely guilty of discrimination under the theory of “Disparate Impact.”
Disparate Impact is a theory of discrimination based on facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately exclude a protected group from employment opportunities. Discrimination by way of Disparate Impact does not require that the discriminating party intend to discriminate against a protected group. In this case there were only sufficient facts to determine whether Home Depot likely discriminated against women, who are a protected group under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts. Here, it was shown that the majority of women were hired as operations employees while the majority of men were hired for merchandising positions. For discrimination to be found under the Disparate Impact theory there only needs to be a showing that the neutral hiring practices has the effect of statistical disparity. Statistical disparity is likely found in Home Depot’s hiring practices when 70% of men are being hired for a position while 70% of women are being hired for another.
An employer can rebut the discrimination charge by showing that the employment practice should be allowed because it has a direct relationship with job performance. Here, Home Depot based this disproportion of gender in hiring for the two positions on the experience of the applicants, their expressed interest in certain rolls, and the aptitude of the applicants for certain types of work. While this may have shown the neutrality in Home Depot hiring practices, it likely does not show that gender is directly related to job performance. Furthermore, the facts revealed that by adopting alternate hiring procedures high-quality applicants of both genders were available and through these alternate hiring procedures the gender gaps within the positions were narrowed. Therefore, it is
Exercising Strategy: Home Depot’s Bumpy Road to Equality
1) Under the circumstances presented in this case, Home Depot was likely guilty of discrimination under the theory of “Disparate Impact.”
Disparate Impact is a theory of discrimination based on facially neutral employment practices that disproportionately exclude a protected group from employment opportunities. Discrimination by way of Disparate Impact does not require that the discriminating party intend to discriminate against a protected group. In this case there were only sufficient facts to determine whether Home Depot likely discriminated against women, who are a protected group under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts. Here, it was shown that the majority of women were hired as operations employees while the majority of men were hired for merchandising positions. For discrimination to be found under the Disparate Impact theory there only needs to be a showing that the neutral hiring practices has the effect of statistical disparity. Statistical disparity is likely found in Home Depot’s hiring practices when 70% of men are being hired for a position while 70% of women are being hired for another.
An employer can rebut the discrimination charge by showing that the employment practice should be allowed because it has a direct relationship with job performance. Here, Home Depot based this disproportion of gender in hiring for the two positions on the experience of the applicants, their expressed interest in certain rolls, and the aptitude of the applicants for certain types of work. While this may have shown the neutrality in Home Depot hiring practices, it likely does not show that gender is directly related to job performance. Furthermore, the facts revealed that by adopting alternate hiring procedures high-quality applicants of both genders were available and through these alternate hiring procedures the gender gaps within the positions were narrowed. Therefore, it is