writemyessay

Discrimination of human beings has always existed throughout society, and most probably will always continue in this fashion. For centuries people have been discriminating others and have been discriminated against for factors that they are powerless to prevent, such as their skin colour, sexuality or gender.However, with a new multi-cultural society being created, race has now become the principal form of discrimination throughout the world. Making it the primary source of discrimination within multi-cultural companies and thus the employment sector, due to the high number of different races being present. To tackle this situation numerous steps have been taken within the political setting to stamp out discrimination within employment.The main federal laws in place prohibiting employment discrimination, more noticeably recognised as the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws, are; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, 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, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination (EEO). DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#2 The U. S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces these laws and is open for interaction with any citizen residing within the United States of America. Meaning that any individual is able to legally file a complaint or lawsuit against a company, if they believe that a company has broken one of these laws against them. Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, colour, national origin, religion, or sex; and therefore it is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.This is the premier law that racial discrimination lawsuits base their foundation upon, as the actions of the employer to the employee illegally contradict the law’s principals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of their race, and that it is unlawful in regard to hiring, termination, compensation, assignment, or classification of employees; transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall; job advertisements; recruitment; testing; use of company facilities; training and apprenticeship programs; fringe benefits; pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or any other condition within the realm of employment (VII).This therefore requires employers to provide equal employment opportunities to individuals, no matter what their race, colour or creed. However, if a promotion request of a Caucasian male within a company is accepted, whilst the request of an Asian male is rejected, the reasoning for this could easily be seen as racial discrimination against the Asian male. Allowing him to legally attempt to prosecute the company on grounds of unlawful practise, despite if the intentions of the employer were actually innocent. This situation was the case for small Solicitors firm where an Asian male successfully sued the company for over $3,000, as he believed he was rejected for promotion upon racial grounds.The firm was a dominant Caucasian enterprise within an area known for racial tension, between the Asian and DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#3 Caucasian communities. The employer stated that he believed the Caucasian male was more suited to the position, despite the Asian male having greater experience and more relevant qualifications. In October of 2005, Judge Sir Peter Irwin Casewell, ruled in favour of the Asian male, as he believed that racial discrimination had occurred and that employment laws had been breached. He ordered that the manager of the company, Mr. Edward K. Turrent, was to pay a sum of $3,200 in compensational damages to Mr.Aafiya Mumbtaz, for racial discrimination against the employee, hindering the progress of the individual’s career prospects, and disrespecting the employment laws set in place by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII (2&3). Due to the company being located within a racially charged area. I can fully understand the reasoning why the Asian male may feel repressed, and that the effecting variables were due to racial discrimination. Therefore I can understand why the company was suspected of breaking the civil rights act, as they refused promotion of a man of a different race, yet accepted a man of a their own creed, a breach of employment regulation.However, I do not believe that this incident was sufficient enough to award the “victim” over $3,000, as there is also the highly likely possibility that the company was acting accordingly. With the event occurring within a racially charged area, there is even the possibility that the Asian male was acting out of racial discrimination himself. Enforcing his revenge upon the Caucasian dominated firm, as he may be a racist individual, attempting to affect the business controlled by an opposite race. An additional reason why I would not have taken such drastic action is due to the fact that the Solicitors firm, whose workforce was a mere 12, employed the Asian male knowing that he was of a different race.If the company had practised racial discrimination, surely they would have rejected Mr. Mumbtaz upon application of the position, rather than reject his request for a promotion. DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#4 This to me shows evidence that a racist management did not control the firm, and therefore no racial discrimination within the business took place. Upon a more global scale, Apple Computers have recently been charged with a $40 million racial discrimination lawsuit, charging the company of unfair dismissal an African-American employee. Described by the plaintiff's attorney as “one the largest racial discrimination cases in U. S.history,” the comparison essay suit alleges that the former employee was denied promotions and standard perks, isolated from co-workers; and then fired for a trivial offence. The suit was filed on October 30th in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The plaintiff, who did not reveal his name because he is currently looking for work, was an Apple employee from 1998 until he was fired in July 2005, working as a product design engineer. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was fired after he brought a friend to work in April 2005, to encourage him to pursue a college education. Waukeen Q. McCoy, the plaintiff's attorney, stated that he believes his client has an exceptionally strong case for discrimination and wrongful termination.“His white counterparts have not been disciplined or terminated for bringing a friend or family member to campus, and it is a way for them to get him out of the company,” McCoy stated. He also believed that the plaintiff was receiving less pay than his white counterparts, an act that would be breaking employment laws. After bringing the friend to Apple's campus, the plaintiff was suspended, leading the company to launch an investigation before terminating the employee; who is now still without employment, currently looking for work in Silicon Valley. McCoy said that the employee had no prior problems and had an “above average” work record. When new management took control of the plaintiff's department within the company, he was immediately moved into a separate cubicle away from the rest of his groupDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#5 for no apparent reason. This formed the foundations of the lawsuit as it provided a suspect indication of racial discrimination towards the employee. The attorney for this case, Waukeen Q. McCoy, has a track record for successfully prosecuting racial discrimination lawsuits. He was the lead plaintiff's attorney in the largest racial discrimination suit in U. S. history, the infamous “Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corporation” case. Interstate Brands, makers of Wonder Bread and other consumer foods, was sued by 15 African-American employees for refusing to hire and promote African-American employees.In August 2000, a jury awarded the plaintiffs $135 million, leading the case to be voted “Verdict of the Year” by Verdicts & Settlements Magazine. Waukeen Q. McCoy stated that he would be willing to settle the case if Apple made a reasonable offer. However this request has fallen upon deaf ears, as Apple have so far failed to respond to the letters that McCoy has sent. Waukeen Q. McCoy said to reporters “I think this is certainly something that corporate America should look at and think twice about doing to someone, singling them out like this,” whereas a spokesperson for Apple declined to comment on the case, citing a company policy of not discussing pending litigation (Apple).Unlike the previous case of the solicitors firm where I believe the employee was at fault, and discrimination was free from the employment sector, it is most likely that racial discrimination did indeed occur within the Apple firm. The United States of America has a tradition of African-American slavery; and due to this, racial discrimination is the main assumption as to why an African-American person should be sacked by a Caucasian company. However, with this conjecture comes the fact that it is also easy for an Africa-American male to claim that he was the victim of racial discrimination, as he knows the topic will receive a great deal of coverage, and put the company who he believes has offended him under significant pressure. The reasoning for this may be money driven, as they know DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#6that the company may agree upon an out of court settlement, protecting the company’s image and reputable status. Despite this, my opinion that racial discrimination was present is made almost certain by the accounts of the African-American being moved into a separate cubical for no apparent reason, and the fact that the African-American man was prosecuted for actions that his Caucasian counterparts were not. In doing this, I believe that the Apple firm has neglected the laws of the civil rights movement by not cohering to the laws of pay, fringe benefits, and the usage of the company facilities; therefore using racial discrimination against there employee, and should consequently receive punishment for their actions.Unlike the previous lawsuit, the Apple Company has a large workforce and employment system. As a result, this means that they obviously employ a great deal more employees due to the high number of jobs available. This presents the possibility of employing African-American individuals out of necessity rather than out of preference. Holding prejudice and racial discrimination against the employee from his arrival to the organisation. Lawsuits such as this cannot so easily be assessed due to the nature of the event, as there is no actual evidence that whatever occurred originated from racially driven motives; consequently meaning that the case is therefore based upon opinions and beliefs.My personal outlook upon the term racism itself, the main factor of racial discrimination, is that it refers to beliefs or practices that differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; and that these differences can be measured upon a scale of superior to inferior. This therefore presents the theory that one race is greater than the other, which is the outlook upon life I believe a racist person preaches. If a person believes that their race if superior to others, I do not think that they themselves should be judged against the law, due to the fact that it is there belief, only there actions. Thus the outcome of the Apple Computer court case and the majority of Discrimination withinDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#7 Employment lawsuits, mainly Racial Discrimination, are forced upon becoming based upon the issues of morals and ethics. Morality is a complex set of principles based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence.A moral may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and a general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation (Morals). I believe that this statement shows that racial discrimination is indeed a moral topic, due to each race having their own morals, and most probably there racial actions originating from their form of morality. However despite this racial discrimination lawsuits cannot be assessed using this theory of philosophy, as morals do not determine what is right or wrong in the aspects of society, only for the particular individual in question. Ethics however refer to standards of conduct that indicate how one should behave, based upon moral duties and virtues; which themselves are derived from the principles of right and wrong.In order to apply this definition to practical decision-making it is necessary to specify the nature of the moral obligations considered intrinsic to ethical behaviour. There are two aspects to ethics: the first involves the ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and propriety from impropriety; whilst the second involves the commitment to do what is right, good and proper (Ethics). Due to this, I believe that this statement can easily be applied to the events that occur within the cases of racial discrimination within employment; as what employers have done to employees may not break the employment laws directly, however they impede the ethical laws within human society. DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#8If the situation of the Asian male lawsuit involved members of the same race, with the outcome being the same, it is most likely that no action would have been taken. However, if the situation within Apple Computers had involved a Caucasian male instead of an African American male, and the case was still taken to court. The lawsuit would then have to be resolved via the means of morals, as none of the employment laws would have been breached. This therefore leads to the conclusion that discrimination within employment is that of an ethical matter rather than being based upon moral principles. From what has been presented it is evident that discrimination occurs within the employment sector, no matter where the company is located, its size or the recognition that it withholds.It is not something that can easily be seen or addressed, such as the punctuality of an employee, and even if it is noticed it is then even more complicated to have any action taken. Throughout the world there is employment; employees looking for work, and employers looking for employees. Due to this there will always be racially mixed companies and, as long as there are racial boundaries, racial discrimination within employment. Despite fair employment practises being in place to prevent discrimination within employment, the outcome is usually blinded by the nature of the event. Human society itself should be able to prevent this discrimination, without the need of imposed laws or regulations within the workplace. Discrimination of human beings has always existed throughout society, and most probably will always continue in this fashion. For centuries people have been discriminating others and have been discriminated against for factors that they are powerless to prevent, such as their skin colour, sexuality or gender.However, with a new multi-cultural society being created, race has now become the principal form of discrimination throughout the world. Making it the primary source of discrimination within multi-cultural companies and thus the employment sector, due to the high number of different races being present. To tackle this situation numerous steps have been taken within the political setting to stamp out discrimination within employment.The main federal laws in place prohibiting employment discrimination, more noticeably recognised as the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws, are; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, 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, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination (EEO). DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#2 The U. S.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces these laws and is open for interaction with any citizen residing within the United States of America. Meaning that any individual is able to legally file a complaint or lawsuit against a company, if they believe that a company has broken one of these laws against them. Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, colour, national origin, religion, or sex; and therefore it is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.This is the premier law that racial discrimination lawsuits base their foundation upon, as the actions of the employer to the employee illegally contradict the law’s principals. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant because of their race, and that it is unlawful in regard to hiring, termination, compensation, assignment, or classification of employees; transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall; job advertisements; recruitment; testing; use of company facilities; training and apprenticeship programs; fringe benefits; pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or any other condition within the realm of employment (VII).This therefore requires employers to provide equal employment opportunities to individuals, no matter what their race, colour or creed. However, if a promotion request of a Caucasian male within a company is accepted, whilst the request of an Asian male is rejected, the reasoning for this could easily be seen as racial discrimination against the Asian male. Allowing him to legally attempt to prosecute the company on grounds of unlawful practise, despite if the intentions of the employer were actually innocent. This situation was the case for small Solicitors firm where an Asian male successfully sued the company for over $3,000, as he believed he was rejected for promotion upon racial grounds.The firm was a dominant Caucasian enterprise within an area known for racial tension, between the Asian and DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#3 Caucasian communities. The employer stated that he believed the Caucasian male was more suited to the position, despite the Asian male having greater experience and more relevant qualifications. In October of 2005, Judge Sir Peter Irwin Casewell, ruled in favour of the Asian male, as he believed that racial discrimination had occurred and that employment laws had been breached. He ordered that the manager of the company, Mr. Edward K. Turrent, was to pay a sum of $3,200 in compensational damages to Mr.Aafiya Mumbtaz, for racial discrimination against the employee, hindering the progress of the individual’s career prospects, and disrespecting the employment laws set in place by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII (2&3). Due to the company being located within a racially charged area. I can fully understand the reasoning why the Asian male may feel repressed, and that the effecting variables were due to racial discrimination. Therefore I can understand why the company was suspected of breaking the civil rights act, as they refused promotion of a man of a different race, yet accepted a man of a their own creed, a breach of employment regulation.However, I do not believe that this incident was sufficient enough to award the “victim” over $3,000, as there is also the highly likely possibility that the company was acting accordingly. With the event occurring within a racially charged area, there is even the possibility that the Asian male was acting out of racial discrimination himself. Enforcing his revenge upon the Caucasian dominated firm, as he may be a racist individual, attempting to affect the business controlled by an opposite race. An additional reason why I would not have taken such drastic action is due to the fact that the Solicitors firm, whose workforce was a mere 12, employed the Asian male knowing that he was of a different race.If the company had practised racial discrimination, surely they would have rejected Mr. Mumbtaz upon application of the position, rather than reject his request for a promotion. DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#4 This to me shows evidence that a racist management did not control the firm, and therefore no racial discrimination within the business took place. Upon a more global scale, Apple Computers have recently been charged with a $40 million racial discrimination lawsuit, charging the company of unfair dismissal an African-American employee. Described by the plaintiff's attorney as “one the largest racial discrimination cases in U. S.history,” the suit alleges that the former employee was denied promotions and standard perks, isolated from co-workers; and then fired for a trivial offence. The suit was filed on October 30th in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The plaintiff, who did not reveal his name because he is currently looking for work, was an Apple employee from 1998 until he was fired in July 2005, working as a product design engineer. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was fired after he brought a friend to work in April 2005, to encourage him to pursue a college education. Waukeen Q. McCoy, the plaintiff's attorney, stated that he believes his client has an exceptionally strong case for discrimination and wrongful termination.“His white counterparts have not been disciplined or terminated for bringing a friend or family member to campus, and it is a way for them to get him out of the company,” McCoy stated. He also believed that the plaintiff was receiving less pay than his white counterparts, an act that would be breaking employment laws. After bringing the friend to Apple's campus, the plaintiff was suspended, leading the company to launch an investigation before terminating the employee; who is now still without employment, currently looking for work in Silicon Valley. McCoy said that the employee had no prior problems and had an “above average” work record. When new management took control of the plaintiff's department within the company, he was immediately moved into a separate cubicle away from the rest of his groupDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#5 for no apparent reason. This formed the foundations of the lawsuit as it provided a suspect indication of racial discrimination towards the employee. The attorney for this case, Waukeen Q. McCoy, has a track record for successfully prosecuting racial discrimination lawsuits. He was the lead plaintiff's attorney in the largest racial discrimination suit in U. S. history, the infamous “Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corporation” case. Interstate Brands, makers of Wonder Bread and other consumer foods, was sued by 15 African-American employees for refusing to hire and promote African-American employees.In August 2000, a jury awarded the plaintiffs $135 million, leading the case to be voted “Verdict of the Year” by Verdicts & Settlements Magazine. Waukeen Q. McCoy stated that he would be willing to settle the case if Apple made a reasonable offer. However this request has fallen upon deaf ears, as Apple have so far failed to respond to the letters that McCoy has sent. Waukeen Q. McCoy said to reporters “I think this is certainly something that corporate America should look at and think twice about doing to someone, singling them out like this,” whereas a spokesperson for Apple declined to comment on the case, citing a company policy of not discussing pending litigation (Apple).Unlike the previous case of the solicitors firm where I believe the employee was at fault, and discrimination was free from the employment sector, it is most likely that racial discrimination did indeed occur within the Apple firm. The United States of America has a tradition of African-American slavery; and due to this, racial discrimination is the main assumption as to why an African-American person should be sacked by a Caucasian company. However, with this conjecture comes the fact that it is also easy for an Africa-American male to claim that he was the victim of racial discrimination, as he knows the topic will receive a great deal of coverage, and put the company who he believes has offended him under significant pressure. The reasoning for this may be money driven, as they know DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#6that the company may agree upon an out of court settlement, protecting the company’s image and reputable status. Despite this, my opinion that racial discrimination was present is made almost certain by the accounts of the African-American being moved into a separate cubical for no apparent reason, and the fact that the African-American man was prosecuted for actions that his Caucasian counterparts were not. In doing this, I believe that the Apple firm has neglected the laws of the civil rights movement by not cohering to the laws of pay, fringe benefits, and the usage of the company facilities; therefore using racial discrimination against there employee, and should consequently receive punishment for their actions.Unlike the previous lawsuit, the Apple Company has a large workforce and employment system. As a result, this means that they obviously employ a great deal more employees due to the high number of jobs available. This presents the possibility of employing African-American individuals out of necessity rather than out of preference. Holding prejudice and racial discrimination against the employee from his arrival to the organisation. Lawsuits such as this cannot so easily be assessed due to the nature of the event, as there is no actual evidence that whatever occurred originated from racially driven motives; consequently meaning that the case is therefore based upon opinions and beliefs.My personal outlook upon the term racism itself, the main factor of racial discrimination, is that it refers to beliefs or practices that differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; and that these differences can be measured upon a scale of superior to inferior. This therefore presents the theory that one race is greater than the other, which is the outlook upon life I believe a racist person preaches. If a person believes that their race if superior to others, I do not think that they themselves should be judged against the law, due to the fact that it is there belief, only there actions. Thus the outcome of the Apple Computer court case and the majority of Discrimination withinDISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#7 Employment lawsuits, mainly Racial Discrimination, are forced upon becoming based upon the issues of morals and ethics. Morality is a complex set of principles based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence.A moral may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and a general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation (Morals). I believe that this statement shows that racial discrimination is indeed a moral topic, due to each race having their own morals, and most probably there racial actions originating from their form of morality. However despite this racial discrimination lawsuits cannot be assessed using this theory of philosophy, as morals do not determine what is right or wrong in the aspects of society, only for the particular individual in question. Ethics however refer to standards of conduct that indicate how one should behave, based upon moral duties and virtues; which themselves are derived from the principles of right and wrong.In order to apply this definition to practical decision-making it is necessary to specify the nature of the moral obligations considered intrinsic to ethical behaviour. There are two aspects to ethics: the first involves the ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and propriety from impropriety; whilst the second involves the commitment to do what is right, good and proper (Ethics). Due to this, I believe that this statement can easily be applied to the events that occur within the cases of racial discrimination within employment; as what employers have done to employees may not break the employment laws directly, however they impede the ethical laws within human society. DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Page#8If the situation of the Asian male lawsuit involved members of the same race, with the outcome being the same, it is most likely that no action would have been taken. However, if the situation within Apple Computers had involved a Caucasian male instead of an African American male, and the case was still taken to court. The lawsuit would then have to be resolved via the means of morals, as none of the employment laws would have been breached. This therefore leads to the conclusion that discrimination within employment is that of an ethical matter rather than being based upon moral principles. From what has been presented it is evident that discrimination occurs within the employment sector, no matter where the company is located, its size or the recognition that it withholds.It is not something that can easily be seen or addressed, such as the punctuality of an employee, and even if it is noticed it is then even more complicated to have any action taken. Throughout the world there is employment; employees looking for work, and employers looking for employees. Due to this there will always be racially mixed companies and, as long as there are racial boundaries, racial discrimination within employment. Despite fair employment practises being in place to prevent discrimination within employment, the outcome is usually blinded by the nature of the event. Human society itself should be able to prevent this discrimination, without the need of imposed laws or regulations within the workplace.