Assignment 1: Affirmative Action, Equal Employment and Adverse Impact

Name

Institution

  

Case 1/Table 1

Job Category: Cashiers

  Current Cashiers Availability in Relevant Population

Men 30% 50%

Women 70% 50%

 

The first table shows disparities in employment or hiring between men and women. Men constitute only 30% of the population, while women are 70%. Yet in both genders, the representation or availability in the relevant population is 50%. The situation outlines problems with the classic congruity models focusing on gender discrimination about the lack of fit or role congruity whereby the negative impacts or outcomes are predicted with regards to the implications of discrimination on women (Manzi, 2019). The situation shows that gender discrimination considerations in the hiring practices within the company have only focused on women and neglected the fact that men equally face gender discrimination. Affirmative action timetables and goals should be targeted at parity, equality, and a level playing field in the employment sector (Sharma, 2016). The firm’s quota system allocates more cashier positions for women which inadvertently disadvantages by discriminating against them. Therefore, the Affirmative Action has applied by the company is only benefiting the female gender but does not contribute to Equality for the male sex.

Equal Employment does not exist for the male gender and the Adverse Impact is about the discrimination of men. This is because the firm’s Affirmative Action has led to Adverse Impact of the unwarranted preferences for women and reverse discrimination against men. Unless the women selected through the affirmative action approach had valid and relevant educational qualifications. The best way to address this concern is through Equal Employment and also adjusting the Affirmative Action to reduce unwarranted preferences for men.

Case 2: Table 2

Job Category: Cashiers

  # Applicants # Hired Selection Rate (in %)

Men 200 100 50%

Women 150 75 50%

 

This table shows the number of applicants, those hired, and the selection rates. In the first place, the applicant population and the number of hired candidates highlight that there is no discrimination in the recruitment and the hiring process. This is because the selection rate for each gender is 50% and both hired gender numbers represent 50% of the population. In this case, Equal Employment is being considered or respected in the hiring system or process and the company does not have an employment or recruitment system that promotes discrimination (Sharma, 2016). Secondly, hired individuals can be assessed and evaluated based on gender representation. For each gender, they are hired based on an equal selection basis or rate (50%) which means that each available population is given a half equal chance of selection. In this case, Affirmative Action exists or is respected to which women are fairly favored the same as men. Yet, a concern could have been the role of Affirmative action providing more opportunities for women and at least increase the number of cashiers hired from the female gender.

Affirmative Action is a policy focusing on promoting or availing equal opportunities for the historically disadvantaged or sidelined groups. Based on the population representation and equal percentile hiring, there is no discrimination against gender. The hiring process respects or considers Equal Employment policy and the case does not have elements of Adverse Impact. There is no evidence of a biased and unfair selection process against a protected class (women).

Case 3: Table 3

  Job Category

  Cashiers Stockers Cleaners

Men 30% 70% 65%

Women 70% 30% 35%

The final table highlights issues and concerns with Affirmative Action and Equal Employment with regards to job categories. For instance, cashiers are mostly women and this shows that the organization is following a policy that favors women in the selection process. This as such, contributes or leads to unwarranted favors to women because when based on educational qualifications, there is discrimination and unfair recruitment or selection or hiring process targeting men (Sharma, 2016). How the jobs are assigned, especially for stockers also shows the promotion of masculinity by which certain jobs are left aside or designed for men, especially with 70% being men as stockers and only 30% women. In so doing, it is unfair labor or employment practice whereby low-ranking jobs and the traditionally ‘perceived masculine’ tasked are assigned the male gender. It leaves the Adverse Impact’ about the notion that men have about the unfair advantage of getting low-ranking jobs than women. Women have more glass ceiling through this hiring process than men, and this adversely leads to unfair promotional practices.

The problem is further aggravated by the concern and fact that 65% of cleaners are men and 35% are women to which Equal Employment is not followed and unwarranted favoritism is afforded for the female gender. Therefore, the situation could be addressed by allowing equal opportunity for both genders (reducing sex discrimination) in all the job categories (Sharma, 2016). The selection policy and how individuals are assigned jobs should not discriminate against the ability of a certain gender to perform a specific task.

References

Manzi, F. (2019). Are the processes underlying discrimination the same for women and men? A critical review of congruity models of gender discrimination. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 469.

Sharma, A. (2016). Managing diversity and equality in the workplace. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1212682.