Search results

In a risk analysis system, different underlying indices often play different roles in identifying the risk scale of the total target in a system, so a concept of discriminatory weight is introduced first. With the help of discriminatory weight and membership functions, a new method for information security risk analysis is proposed. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above issues.

First, a concept of discriminatory weight is introduced. Second, with the help of fuzzy sets, risk scales are captured in terms of fuzzy sets (namely their membership functions). Third, a new risk analysis method involving discriminatory weights is proposed to realize a transformation from the membership degrees of the underlying indices to the membership degrees of the total target. At last, an example of information security risk analysis shows the effectiveness and feasibleness of the new method.

The new method generalizes the weighted-average method. The comparative analysis done with respect to other two methods show that the proposed method exhibits higher classification accuracy. Therefore, the proposed method can be applied to other risk analysis system with a hierarchial.

This paper proposes a new method for information security risk analysis with the help of membership functions and the concept of discriminatory weight. The new method generalizes the weighted-average method. Comparative analysis done with respect to other two methods show that the proposed method exhibits higher classification accuracy in E-government information security system. What is more, the proposed method can be applied to other risk analysis system with a hierarchial.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

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 purpose of this paper is to introduce the concept of discriminatory job loss (DJL), which occurs when discrimination and job loss intersect. The paper aims to discuss the antecedents and consequences of DJL and calls for research on the topic.

Diversity and careers research from management, psychology, economics, and sociology literatures on discrimination, job loss, and unemployment are examined.

Discriminatory job loss involves discriminatory termination, discriminatory layoff, retaliatory termination, and constructive discharge and exacerbates negative outcomes of discrimination or job loss alone. Antecedents to DJL are the external and internal environments. DJL affects unemployment duration and reemployment quality and targets self‐esteem, self‐efficacy, and perceived control.

When large numbers of people experience DJL and long unemployment durations and lower re‐employment quality, this affects the individuals as well as society. In times of high employment, when jobs are scarce, individuals have fewer employment options and employers have more freedom to engage in discrimination. Having large groups of people know that their ability to maintain employment is negatively affected by their demographic group membership while others know that their demographic membership provides employment privileges can result in long‐term negative individual, organizational, and societal consequences.

This paper brings attention to, and calls for research on, DJL and its negative consequences.

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.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

The research predicts which public school teachers are likely to resign their union membership since agency fees were found unconstitutional in Janus v. AFSCME. We compare teachers in right-to-work states with comprehensive collective bargaining laws with teachers in former agency shop states, using unique district-teacher matched data constructed from the School and Staffing Survey. We find that teachers who are male, Hispanic, part-time, with alternative certification, work either in charter schools or in schools with more students qualifying for free lunches are more likely to become nonunion. Teachers who are black, work under a collective bargaining, have post-graduate degrees, are more experienced, work in larger schools or in areas with a higher cost of living, perceive more school problems or a poor school climate, work in an elementary school, or teach special education are more likely to remain union members now that agency shop provisions are unenforceable.