Assignment 4 Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Assignment 4 - look for Paper ExampleThe Afri stinker American employees filed a class action suit in which they argued that these practices were a violation of Title VII. This is because neither possessing a high school education nor passing the tests was a exigency for successful performance on the jobs in question. In the suit, they argued that the practices were illegal since a higher proportion of the African Americans did not have high school educations. On its part, the comp both put forward the argument that the requirements were ground on its judgment and that they would generally improve the general quality of the workforce, and that the comp some(prenominal) had no discriminatory clothed in instituting these requirements. Further, the company argued that its lack of discriminatory intent was demonstrated by its efforts to assist uneducated employees by financing two thirds of the tuition cost for high school education, (Rue & Byars, 2008). The philander Ruling However , the Supreme Court made a govern in favor of the African American employees, (Rue & Byars, 2008). Meaning of the Ruling The ruling meant that the Duke Power Company could not use the two tests as the criteria for transferring incumbent employees from an outside job to an deep down job. Based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, businesses, including the Duke Power Company, should adhere to the several secernate provisions stipulated by Section 703. These provisions outline wrong employment practices for businesses and companies. It is an unlawful practice for any employer to refuse or fail to hire or discharge any person, or otherwise to break up against any person with respect to his terms, privileges, compensation, or terms of employment, based on the persons color, sex, race, religion, or national origin. It is too unlawful to segregate, limit, or sort out employees or applicants for employment in any behavior that would tend to deprive or deprive any person of employment opportunities, or affect his smear as an employee adversely, due to the persons color, sex, religion, race, or national origin, (Rue & Byars, 2008). According to Rue & Byars (2008), it is also unlawful for an employment agency to refuse or fail to refer for employment, or otherwise discriminate against any person based on his or her color or race, or to refer or classify for employment any person based on his color, race, sex, or religion. Also, a proletariat organization can not expel or exclude from its membership, or otherwise discriminate against any person on the basis of his color, race, sex, or religion. The organization can also not cause an employer to discriminate against any person. The labor organization can also not classify its membership or applicants in a room that is deemed discriminatory. Therefore, the provisions stipulate that an employer, a labor, organization, and a joint labor-management committee that controls apprenticeship or training, to discriminate against another person. This ruling, as well as the provisions listed above, has major implications on the Duke Power Company and other businesses in general. First, a violation of any of the provisions results in an unlawful employment practice. Such unlawful employment practices argon quick to attract lawsuits. According to Hersh (1991), lawsuits are costly and time consuming, and many companies try to avoid them. Lawsuits also might be a stain to the companys image and reputation. Therefore, the ruling would go a long way in ensuring that companies and businesses strictly adhere to the