Discrimination Part 1
Introduction
Respect and fairness are critical in the treatment of employers with their employees. One reason for this is that this establishes the company’s reputation for justice and objectivity. This reputation is being carefully analyzed by many individuals both inside and outside the organization and is said to be a crucial factor in retaining and attracting desirable employees. Another and an equally important reason is that recognizing and protecting employee workplace rights lessens the possibility of the company in becoming involved and charged with discrimination, leading to lengthy proceedings and costly resolutions (“Rights in the Workplace”, 2006). In this paper, the U.S. Federal Law will be discussed, and its importance will be emphasized by citing two concrete examples. This is in relation to workplace privacy issues in using technology.
The U.S. Federal Law
There are several federal laws in the prohibition of job discrimination. These include the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older; Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments; Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination. These laws are being enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which provides supervision and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies (“Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions and Answers”, 2002). These laws serve as guide on the actions of employers in protection and implementation of rules and regulations in their companies. To further understand the significance of these laws, it is better to apply them to real-life examples or cases.
One specific case is the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Sheila White case, where White claimed that she was retaliated against for complaining about sexual harassment after complaining to company officials that her supervisor insulted and reassigned her, for being inappropriate in working in the department. White had been operating a forklift, but was reassigned to perform standard track laborer tasks, as a “more senior man” should be assigned to the position. She filed a charge with the EEOC, but was suspended several days later without pay, for insubordination. With this, the Supreme Court found this case constituted retaliation, as White had been reassigned to a job that was less prestigious, less desirable and more difficult, and although she gotten her back pay, she would not know whether she would get her job back (“Change in Job Duties Might be Retaliation, says Supreme Court”, 2006). This is a clear case stating the discrimination based on sex or gender, as Ms. White was assigned a more difficult job in favor of a “more senior man”. This case has violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and proper legal actions must be taken by the Courts to protect the rights of every employee.
Another case is the case of Epson America, Inc. v Alana Shoars, where Shoars was fired for reporting his supervisor of tapping company emails and threatening her if, she interfered. Her alleged termination occurred in retaliation of her reporting of and refusal to go along with her supervisor’s and the company intercepting the email, which violated the public policy and prohibitions concerning wiretapping and eavesdropping, as stated in the Penal Code sections 630-632.5. The Courts found that Epson and Shoars’ supervisor violated the Penal Code section 631 (“Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace”, 1993). In relation to the federal laws stated, the case violates these laws as it is prohibited to immediately fire an employee without legal trial or evidence, under Title VII, ADA and ADEA, this is also a form of discrimination. Moreover, this case is also related to workplace privacy issues in a company.
Employees cannot expect privacy in their conversations, especially concerning the use of computers, emails and other Internet related conversations, for most computer monitoring equipment permits employers to monitor their files and conversations without the knowledge of their employees. This gives us the information that in most cases, electronic mails or emails and voice mails are not private. If an email system is being used in a company, the employer owns it and is allowed to review its contents. Likewise, messages sent within the company, as well as those that are sent from the employee’s terminal to another company or from another company to the employee can be subject to monitoring by an employer. This includes web-based email accounts such as Yahoo Mail and Hotmail, as well as instant messages. Even if the messages are deleted from the terminal, chances are, they are still in the computer system because electronic mail systems retain messages in memory and are often backed up on magnetic tape, along with other important data from the computer system. Similarly, even if the email system has an option for marking messages as private, in most cases, privacy cannot be guaranteed. This can only be done through the process of encryption, where it involves the scrambling messages at the sender’s terminal, then unscrambling the message at the receiver’s terminal (“Employee Monitoring: Is There Privacy in the Workplace”, 1993). This is said to be a guarantee for the company to sort the exchange of information to provide safety, integrity and reputation of the company.
Conclusion
Uplifting the workplace rights of employees is essential as it provides protection and security for each individual working in a company and earning a living. Each company must respect the rights of their employees, as they are the moving force of the company. This is why violation of these rights must be punishable by law and must be given appropriate action, to alleviate the negative effects it brings to the labor force. The laws mentioned recognize the rights of each employee, and the employer has the responsibility to protect them.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment