Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

While the words diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination are commonly read and heard by working adults and professionals, they can at times be confusing and fearful to some managers. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of a specific aspect of US civil rights laws – the disparate impact theory. The authors provide an analysis based on the statute, case law interpreting, and applying the statute, administrative guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as legal and management commentary. The paper illustrates the requirements of a plaintiff employee’s initial case based on the disparate impact theory. The challenging causation component which requires some degree of statistical evidence is given particular attention. Limitations to the paper are stated at the beginning; and recommendations to managers are explored and provided toward the end of the paper.

It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. Actual court cases up until this month and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed.

The salient feature of disparate impact is that this legal theory allows a plaintiff job applicant or employee to sustain a case of illegal discrimination without providing any evidence of a discriminatory motive. As opposed to the disparate treatment liability is imposed based on disproportionate adverse results and not discriminatory intent.

This paper deals with the disparate impact theory pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, it must be pointed out that the disparate impact theory is also applicable to claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Since the focus of this paper is Title VII federal and state constitutional issues, such as the applicability of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause that may arise in disparate impact cases involving government entities will not be addressed.

Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workplace from illegal discriminatory practices. Initially, employers and managers must be aware of the distinction between a disparate impact case and a disparate treatment case with the latter requiring evidence of intentional discrimination. Evidence, of course, can be direct or circumstantial or inferential. Whereas in a disparate impact case there is no intentional discrimination; and as such proof of discriminatory intent is not required. Rather, the employee has to present evidence that the employer’s neutral on-its-face employment policy or practice caused an adverse disproportionate impact on the employee as a member of a protected class.

Human resources professionals and managers must become educated in diversity laws in order to provide an inclusive workplace for all employees and candidates. Employers have legitimate areas of concern in hiring and promoting employees; and the courts are cognizant of employer responsibilities; and thus the employers must be able to show how specific knowledge, skills, education, training, backgrounds, as well as height, weight, strength, and dexterity are legitimate qualifications that directly relate to successful job performance.

This is an original paper by the authors.

The pandemic forced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to transition to online video mediation (OVM) in place of its existing in-person mediation (IPM) model. Using measurements from their 2000 evaluation of EEOC IPM, plus new measures related to the elements of OVM, the authors surveyed 2,387 EEOC mediation participants during the pandemic, obtaining responses from 1,234 (53%).

OVM performed as well or better on the four measures of procedural fairness, overall mediation fairness, satisfaction with the results, and willingness to use the process again. Sixty-seven percent of the parties favored OVM over IPM. Responses to a closed-end survey that provided for additional open-end responses indicate that OVM is seen by the parties as having a more convenient location, lower costs, and greater flexibility. The results establish that OVM provides greater access to justice due to safe space and to the willingness of additional employers to engage in OVM.

Briefly defines national origin discrimination before covering the guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Considers the range of National origin Discrimination including height and weight requirements, accent discrimination, English only rules, harassment, immigration‐related practices and occupation qualifications. Provides some statistics on the current position and gives some recommendations for employers. Concludes that this needs addressing and the demographics suggest that could bcome a growing problem.

Looks at discrimination and introduces the work of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the legislation within which it operates. Considers the guidelines of the commission in particular, covering the title VII of Civil Rights Acts 1964, Equal Pay Act, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967. Concludes that if employers remember some key principles, it will minimize employment claims.

Even more than 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination toward a number of groups in employment settings in the United States, workplace discrimination remains a persistent problem in organizations. This chapter provides a comprehensive review and analysis of contemporary theory and evidence on the nature, causes, and consequences of discrimination before synthesizing potential methods for its reduction. We note the strengths and weaknesses of this scholarship and highlight meaningful future directions. In so doing, we hope to both inform and inspire organizational and scholarly efforts to understand and eliminate workplace discrimination.

Outlines the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and covers the Civil Rights Act 1964 before briefly mentioning the Age discrimination in Employment Act 1967, equal pay Act 1963, Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 and other laws. Provides statistics from the EEOC website and also looks at affirmative action. Considers recent developments affecting Manufacturers in relation to race, sex age and disabilities, citing case law examples. Discusses reverse discrimination and concludes that companies need to keep pace with developments.

Outlines the role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and looks at the nature and number of charges which they file on behalf of the employee. Covers race, sexual harassment, religion, age, disability, pay equality and retaliation claims. Outlines the position of Civil litigation in the US, providing statistics for comparison. Gives some recommendation to help employer avoid claims and concludes that changes in culture are required to avoid the increasing number of allegations.

This study investigates how federal and state-level laws designed to reduce workplace sexual harassment relate to the content of sexual harassment training programs in a sample of private U.S. companies. To gauge the effect of the law on the regulation of sexual harassment, we draw on unique data containing information on federal and state-level legal environments, formal discrimination charges filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and establishment-level sexual harassment training initiatives. State-level legal regulation of sexual harassment at work is linked to more elaborate sexual harassment training programs, even when federal legal regulations are not. Our findings underscore the importance of state-level legal regimes in the workplace regulation of gender-based rights and provide an example for future studies of work inequality and the law.