Answer

Gender Discrimination Analysis

Introduction

Gender discrimination continues to be a major theme in both media and discourses surrounding workplace practices and challenges. Although gender discrimination has been on the decline since the late 1970s as a result the increasing antidiscrimination policies and efforts made by feminist movements, working women still experience various forms of discrimination in their workplaces. The most common forms, as Parker and Funk (2017) found out include earning less that their male counterparts in similar positions, being treated as incompetent, less support from managers, experiences of small slights, unequal access to promotion, and “being passed over for the most important assignments” (p. 2). In the U.S., for instance, the gender pay gap – differences in earnings between working men and women – stands at approximately 82% as of March 2020. This means that women are generally paid 82 cents for every dollar that males with the same qualifications earn (National Partnership for Women and Families, 2020).

In response to these discriminatory practices and their related impacts on working women, many countries around the world, especially those with developed economies are increasingly passing and implementing policies to discourage companies from engaging in gender discrimination. One of such policies implemented in the U.S. is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Compliance with these policies presents HR managers with overwhelming challenges as companies are forced to adjust their business models and adopt universal HR management and compensation schemes. To develop a solid understanding of gender equality in workplaces, the current paper offers review of a gender discrimination case summary and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with particular focus on gender discrimination. Subsequently, recommendations on how to adopt a nondiscrimination policy in organization to achieve compliance with antidiscrimination law are presented.          

Summary of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a provision that protects employees against discrimination on the basis of color, race, sex, national origin (ethnicity) and religion (EEOC, n.d; Justia, 2020). Enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the provision prohibits discrimination of employees with regard to any condition or term of employment. The act applies to almost all employers who have more than 15 workers, although certain employers, such as religious groups and those in bona fide occupations are exempted. Under the provision, EEOC looks at and investigates acts of provision in such areas as recruitment, selection and hiring, promotions, training, transfers, disciplining, dismissals, assigning work, performance appraisal, and access to employment benefits such as financial rewards and paid leave. Further, the act protects employees from retaliation by their employers for opposing, reporting or complaining of discrimination or aiding the EEOC in their investigation against a harassment claim (Justia, 2019; XpertHR, 2020).

Aspects of Title VII have been continuously expanded since the passage of the act in 1964, and now protects female employees from pregnancy discrimination and sexual harassment in their workplaces. For instance, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which is an amendment of Title IV requires that “pregnant women are treated the same as other employees who are disabled” (SHRM, 2019). This means that are equally entitled to a company’s policies for taking paid leave, health benefits while on their leaves as well as reinstatement and promotion after leave. There is also the Family and Medical Leave Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to further protect working women from gender-based discrimination. Having reviewed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the following section looks a case where the act was violated when UPS discriminated one of their employees because of her pregnancy. 

Review of a Gender Discrimination Case Summary and its HR Implications

In a case of Young v. United Parcel Service (UPS), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Young. Young, a part-time delivery driver for UPS had suit the company for denying her a disability accommodation: not to raise more than 70 pounds due to her pregnancy as advised by her doctor.  According to the UPS’s policy, Young had not met the criteria for being granted disability accommodation – injured on the job, involved in a car accident, qualify as a disabled person under the ADA, or have lost Department of Transportation certificate – despite her being pregnant. In the lawsuit, Young alleged that she belongs in the protected class, and the UPS’s decision not to grant her a disability accommodation constituted discrimination treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. While the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the arguments of both sides were rejected because the court did not establish whether the UPS’s policy on disability accommodation “was intentionally discriminatory towards pregnant workers” (International Public Management Association for Human Resources, 2015).

The case of Young v. United Parcel Service (UPS) offers a good example on why HR managers must rethink their policies to achieve compliance with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and other types of gender discrimination. However, devising and implementing such policies should with a clear understanding of practices and decisions that constitute pregnancy discrimination. As the EEOC outlines, pregnancy discrimination occurs when HR managers treats a woman (whether an existing employee or job applicant) unfavorably due to “pregnancy childbirth or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth (EOCC, 2019)”. The act further makes a provision that employers should treat pregnant women the same way they treat other employees with temporary disabilities. With this understanding, HR managers will be in a position to implement policies that accommodate female employees during their pregnancies, and ultimately avoid lawsuits related to PDA noncompliance.    

Items to Include in an Organization’s Nondiscrimination Policy to Achieve       Compliance

A nondiscrimination policy to guide the organization’s actions and ensure compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will comprise of the following items.

1. The organization is “an equal opportunity employer” committed to achieving diversity and inclusion at all levels. To achieve this the organization has zero tolerance to discrimination in vacancy advertisement, recruitment, selection and hiring, promotion, compensation, demotion and other conditions of employment.
2. The company maintains a harassment-free environment, and all forms of harassment on the basis of one’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion and age will not be tolerated. The policy is applicable to all employees including those in senior management positions.

• Unwelcome sexual advances and other forms of sexual harassment are strictly prohibited, and any employee found engaging in such practices and acts risks prompt dismissal.

1. Any employee who experiences discrimination and harassment on the basis of his/her race gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religious is strongly to immediately raise the concern to his/her immediate supervisor or the HR department. The matter will investigated impartially and appropriate actions taken against the perpetrator.