IDW10
Question for Discussion:
Discuss the following:
- Jamie Best, a black female, applied for a management position in Ames Department Stores in Seattle. After completing her application and two interviews, she was asked to take a math test and a general aptitude test. As a result of her score, she was disqualified from consideration for the management job. Argue whether you believe that this testing policy is a violation of Title VII and what is required, given your understanding of the chapter reading, when testing potential employees for a job. Explain how Title VII protects employees in the workplace and how tests are validated.
- Benjamin, one of your managers for your business, likes to hug employees in the morning and you have advised him against this practice. You have provided him counseling and videos to watch that demonstrate appropriate touching and actions per sexual harassment in the workplace. Benjamin is mentally challenged, and most employees understand his limitations. Lori, a new employee, files suit for sexual harassment against your business for Benjamin’s actions. What forms of sexual harassment discrimination exist today and, identify the required elements Lori would have to prove in civil court to be successful? How does the “culpability element” help or hinder Lori in her lawsuit?
Sample Answer:
In the scenario where Jamie Best, a black female, applied for a management position in Ames Department Stores in Seattle. After completing her application and two interviews, she was asked to take a math test and a general aptitude test. As a result of her score, she was disqualified from consideration for the management job. If Ames Department Stores requires this test for all employees who apply for a management position, if being good at math is a need for Jamie’s applied position, and the test is not designed to discriminate then I believe that this testing policy is not a violation of Title VII. Tests can be helpful to eliminate applicants who do not qualify for the job’s requirements.
Given my understanding of the chapter reading, the requirement when testing potential employees for a job is that the test needs to be valid. The employer would want to make sure that they are testing for the knowledge that pertains to the job the applicant is applying for. Per the EEOC, Title VII permits employment tests as long as they are not “designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin “ (EEOC, 2). Title VII also imposes restriction on how to score tests. Employers are not permitted to 1) adjust the scores of 2) use different cutoff scores for and 3) otherwise alter the results of employment-related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (EEOC, 2).
Title VII protects employees in the workplace by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Jennings, 1). Employment tests are validated by ensuring that the tests are related to successful job performance and that the test does not have the effect of eliminating certain races from the employment market (Jennings, 1). Tests can be validated by comparing results with the applicant’s eventual job performance, can test current employees and use the correlation between the scores and job performance, and receiving consent from applicants.
In the scenario where Benjamin, one of my managers for my business, likes to hug employees in the morning and I have advised him against this practice. I have provided him counseling and videos to watch that demonstrate appropriate touching and actions per sexual harassment in the workplace. Benjamin is mentally challenged, and most employees understand his limitations. Lori, a new employee, files suit for sexual harassment against my business for Benjamin’s actions.
The forms of sexual harassment discrimination that exist today are quid pro quo cases and atmosphere of harassment cases. Quid pro quo cases includes where an employee is required to submit sexual advances in order to remain employed (Jennings, 1). For example, if someone in a supervisor or management role suggests that the employee will be compensated in some fashion in exchange for sexual favors. Whereas atmosphere of harassment cases includes invitations, language, pictures, or suggestions become so pervasive as to create a hostile work environment (Jennings, 1). For example, if there is verbal or physical unwelcomed actions or comments made towards an employee. Lori would have to provide proof that the sexual harassment took place, the conduct was severe or pervasive, and that the harassment continued and interfered with her work and performance in order to be successful in court. The employer should verify that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexual harassing behavior and that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by employer (Jennings, 1).
Culpability is the legal responsibility for a criminal act where the accused has an understanding of the crime (Culpability, 3). I think that the culpability element will hinder Lori in her lawsuit due to the fact it is mentioned that Benjamin is mentally challenged and has limitations. It would appear that Benjamin’s actions are not sexually provoked.
