EEOC v Target Essay

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

The Daily Record Staff. "Legal Opinions - U.S. Supreme Court: October 14, 2008." Daily Record, The; Baltimore, Md.. 14 Oct. 2008 eLibrary. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.

The proof of discriminatory intent is not required and although the court concluded that TVA’s processes with interviewing had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates in general, the court disagreed, citing the “lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a “prima facie” case” (Walsh, 2010). Dunlap did not prove, within the evidence presented, that the procedures TVA used were practiced prior. Although the district court concluded that “TVA's interview process had been manipulated to exclude African American candidates” (Walsh, 2010), the court of appeals disagreed because it did not believe there was analytical data that blatantly prove how any protected group was impacted adversely. The court found that Dunlap can only challenge his specific interview processes and not an entire group.

After the trial court had dismissed the case along with affirmation from the 10th Circuit Court, the U.S Supreme Court reversed and remanded it to the court of appeals. During the decision process,

Have you ever felt like you were denied a job based on your abilities or race? Such might be possible, but Firoozeh experienced a whole different form of prejudice. She was denied jobs not because of her lack of education, which consists of graduating with honors from UC Berkeley with a humanities major, rather, she was denied because of her name. Though many places claim to be an equal opportunity employer, that is not always true, but being defined by your name, rather than your skills or education is just ignorant. Firoozeh is reluctant to believe it is a coincidence, but as soon as she began filling out applications with her “American” name, Julie, all of a sudden she began to receive a flood of job offers. That was more than coincidence, that was discrimination.

From the employer/employee social prospective, this case almost certainly, negatively impacts the relationship between the two. Neither party can conclude what is mandatory or up for bargain when contracting with one another. These imposed contracts have the unnecessary consequence of forcing employers to retroactively extend to workers optional benefits for which they did not contract.

In the case EEOC v. Kaplan, the EEOC was alleging that Kaplan’s use of credit checks was having a disparate impact for African American applicants and was in violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act (EEOC v. Kaplan, 2014). In this case, Kaplan uses the same screening process that the EEOC uses itself. The EEOC states “overdue just debts increase the temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts as a means of gaining funds to meet financial obligations.” (EEOC v. Kaplan, 2014. para 1). Kaplan has similar concerns for positions that have access to student’s financial loan information as well as other positions (EEOC v. Kaplan, 2014). As consistent with other rulings, the EEOC has the responsibility to provide statistical proof of the disparate impact in violation of the Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act. This proof must be provided by a reliable expert and cannot rely on nationwide criminal justice statistics (Fliegel & Mora, 2013). Under review of this case, there were multiple concerns with the evidence that was presented. The EEOC relied solely on the statistical data compiled by Kevin Murphy. The district court excluded Murphy’s evidence on the grounds that it was unreliable. The EEOC did not provide sufficient proof that Murphy’s methodology satisfied any of the factors that courts required to determine the reliability of the data. Even Murphy admitted that his sample was not a true representation of Kaplan’s entire application pool.

What did the trial court do? Who won and lost? What did the trial court say?

An excellent example of this is a study conducted in 2003 by Harvard economics professor Sendhil Mullainathan and Marianne Bertrand, an economist at the University of Chicago. As a part of their study they sent out thousands of résumés to employers with job openings. The résumés were statistically identical, but they used stereotypical African-American names on some and stereotypically white names on others. The résumé with a “white” name was roughly 50% more likely to result in a callback for an interview. These discrepancies, because the résumés were nearly identical, can only be attributed to the names. Startling results like these were found in other areas as well. When asked to make judgements about two patient’s heart procedure, one clack and one white, doctors gave different recommendations for treatment. Most doctors were much less likely to recommend a helpful cardiac procedure, catheterization, to black patients that whites. Furthermore, when whites and blacks were sent to bargain for a used car, blacks were offered initial prices roughly $700 higher. Even when selling an iPod online where the photos had white hands in some and African-American hands in others, the phone with the white had received 21 percent more offers than the black

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal Law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the grounds of sex, race, color, national origin and religion (www.aauw.org). Thus far in our lectures we have discussed the strategies used by various minority groups who have been discriminated against in violation of Title VII. There has been land mark decisions made from the hard fought fights by, African Americans, Women, Mexicans and Jewish alike. Their challenges of non-compliance and enforcement of Title VII brought successes that didn’t come without sacrifice, division and in some cases physical harm.

The constitution issue involved was over the 21st Amendment. The 21st Amendment was an repeal of the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment ended prohibition, which is what the 18th Amendment was, which did not allow the sale or production of alcohol. While listening to the actual transcripts of the case Roger

Because of this case, the Supreme Court has established their abilities to review or investigate into the other two branches when determining if certain actions or laws are constitutional. This is one of the first cases where the system of “checks and balances” has come into play, which has helped set the rulings for all of the cases after this when regarding other

Blacks and whites have different experiences throughout their lifespan. When it comes to job hiring process, it is even harder for blacks because of their names. Previous studies have found that black names are viewed negatively by others (Busse and Seraydarian, 1977). “There are large disparities between Blacks and Whites in the United States on many indicators of social and economic welfare including

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws have helped shape the workforce today and they have greatly contributed to the introduction of diversity in the working environment. No longer are people rejected of employment based on their race, gender, age, or disability. The labor force has increased from 62 million people in 1950 to over 159 million people in the labor force today (Toolsi). The passing of the EEO laws proved to be a great advancement in the diversity of the workforce and treatment of employees, but it was a tremendous battle to get where we are today. Before the passing of these laws, unequal treatment was normal and discrimination was common among the majority of employers. This made acquiring employment difficult and caused many people to be unemployed. Three Equal Employment Opportunity laws that helped diminish these discriminatory practices were Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. For each law, I will describe what it enforces and explain the actions that happened in society and the workplace that made these laws necessary. I will discuss important political figures that contributed to the passing of these laws. Lastly, I will examine how each law has improved human resources and has led to better management of employees overall.

Throughout the years the United States has faced many challenges with equal employment opportunities for everyone. The United States has developed The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, also known as the EEOC, to enforce laws that help prevent everyone from being treated unfairly when it comes to employment options. The EEOC has established stipulations and overlooks all of the federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices and policies (“Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions and Answers”). Some laws that have been passed are the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Although some discrimination is still a problem, all of these