Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine alleged perpetrators' reactions to being accused of discrimination.

The paper examines how the mode of confrontation as well as the perpetrator's status relate to the alleged perpetrator's state of anger and the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. To test the hypotheses, the authors conducted an experimental design using an organizational scenario.

The mode of confrontation predicts the likelihood of providing a justification to the victim. The paper also found that both anger and the likelihood of providing a justification for a charge of discrimination are higher when the mode of confrontation is indirect and the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor.

An organizational scenario limits the realism of the study such that results may not generalize to actual organizational settings (Stone, Hosoda, Lukaszewski and Phillips). In addition, the response rate was low. Nevertheless, a full understanding of issues related to reactions to alleged discrimination will depend upon research conducted in a variety of settings under a variety of conditions.

It is unlikely that direct confrontations will be instrumental in correcting misperceptions of discriminatory behavior. Organizations need to provide training on how to manage confrontation episodes as an opportunity to mitigate perceived mistreatment.

Which mode of confrontation is best? Indirect confrontation is associated with a higher likelihood of the alleged perpetrator providing a justification for a charge of discrimination, particularly when the alleged perpetrator is the supervisor. However, anger is also higher when supervisors are confronted indirectly about allegations of discrimination.

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.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

The purpose of this paper is to gauge the impact of the following on the share price of a firm that has allegedly committed labor abuses: the allegation itself, explanations (justifications and excuses) offered by the company spokesperson, and denials of responsibility for the alleged abuse.

The study uses archival data and an event study methodology.

Labor abuse allegations have a negative impact on the firm’s share price. Allegations that are accompanied by an explanation (a justification or excuse) have a less negative impact than those that are not accompanied by an explanation. Denials of responsibility have a negative influence on the share price.

If managers want to avoid a negative hit on the share price from an allegation of wrongdoing, they should provide an explanation (a justification or excuse) and avoid the use of denials.

Prior research has shown a negative impact from several types of labor abuse. This study extends prior research by showing a negative impact for all forms of labor abuse as a general category; it also extends findings from lab research on the impact of explanations on fairness judgments to a new context and a new dependent variable (the financial performance of the firm), which is on an organizational scale. It adds to the extreme paucity of empirical findings relative to the impact of denials and also adds to a small but growing literature on fairness judgments by third parties and their consequences.

Misconduct allegations have been found to not only affect the alleged firm but also other, unalleged firms in form of reputational and financial spillover effects. It has remained unexplored, however, how the number of prior allegations against other firms matters for an individual firm currently facing an allegation. Building on behavioral decision theory, we argue that the relationship between allegation prevalence among other firms and investor reaction to a focal allegation is inverted U-shaped. The inverted U-shaped effect is theorized to emerge from the combination of two effects: In the absence of prior allegations against other firms, investors fail to anticipate the focal allegation, and hence react particularly negatively (“anticipation effect”). In the case of many prior allegations against other firms, investors also react particularly negatively because investors perceive the focal allegation as more warranted (“evaluation effect”). The multi-industry, empirical analysis of 8,802 misconduct allegations against US firms between 2007 and 2017 provides support for our predicted, inverted U-shaped effect. Our study complements recent misconduct research on spillover effects by highlighting that not only a current allegation against an individual firm can “contaminate” other, unalleged firms but that also prior allegations against other firms can “contaminate” investor reaction to a focal allegation against an individual firm.

The object of this research is the reconstruction of the existing legal response by European Union states to the phenomenon of immigration. It seeks to analyse the process of conferral of protection.

One main dimension is selected and discussed: the case law of the national courts. The study focuses on the legal status of immigrants resulting from the intervention of these national courts.

The research shows that although the courts have conferred an increasing protection on immigrants, this has not challenged the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the states to decide, according to their discretionary prerogatives, which immigrants are allowed to enter and stay in their territories. Notwithstanding the differences in the general constitutional and legal structures, the research also shows that the courts of the three countries considered – France, Germany and Spain – have progressively moved towards converging solutions in protecting immigrants.

The research contributes to a better understanding of the different legal orders analysed.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

This substantial article begins with an examination of two important grounds of discrimination: sex discrimination governed by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (and the related Equal Pay Act 1970) and racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. Discussion is confined to the right not to be discriminated against and covers the detailed provisions of these acts in this respect, judicial precedents and important cases heard not only in the British courts but in the European Court of Justice. The third section of the article is about discrimination in connection with trade union membership and activities governed by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the related Equal Pay Act 1970, and the Race Relations Act 1976 have not been consolidated by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Each of the Acts treats sex and race discrimination in a general and broad sense. Both make similar provisions in connection with various aspects of discrimination in employment. Since one act is inspired by the other, the judicial precedent in sex discrimination cases will normally be followed in racial discrimination cases and vice versa. Both Acts are outlined and the grounds that constitute discrimination discussed as well as permissible discrimination. Enforcement of the Acts and liability is detailed. Discrimination in connection with trade union membership and activities is also examined. The right not to have action short of dismissal taken against the employee and remedies for action short of dismissal are discussed.

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.