-
National Origin Discrimination in Pay -Legal or not?
QUESTION
According to the Equal Pay Act, employers are permitted to pay males and females different wages under a limited set of circumstances. What about differences in national origin, however? Are there legitimate reasons that a company can use to pay individuals differently based on their national origin?
Winner Ford of Cherry Hill and Winner Ford evidently thought so. They employed Chinese and non-Chinese emergency and accessory installation (EAI) technicians. The company paid the Chinese EAI technicians as much as $3 per hour less than it paid the non-Chinese technicians. The dealerships are part of Chas. S. Winner Inc. The company is a large automotive dealership based in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The dealership offers direct sales and leasing of cars and trucks, fleet management services, police responder vehicles, delivery vehicles, and more.
The technicians performed the same work, regardless of national origin. Some of the non-Chinese workers had less experience than the Chinese technicians, and others had no experience. Because of the pay disparity, one of the Chinese EAIs complained. The company responded by reprimanding him for complaining and suggested that he could lose his job if he sought legal advice. The EEOC brought charges against the company in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey when attempts at conciliation were not successful. The court ordered the company to pay $150,000 in lost wages and damages to the members of the class action lawsuit. The courts also required a consent decree for three years.
Answer the following questions by applying the concepts learned in Chapter 3. Please post the case study in as one MS Word document. Note: See template provided for case study paper. Also, conduct literature reviews on the subject of discussion and use to support your case study answers:
Visit the EEOC website and read about national origin Discrimination, especially noting the “Facts About National Origin Discrimination” under the “More Information” section. Prepare a memo to explain to the owners of Winner Ford why what they did was a problem.
What type of discrimination occurred? What would Winner Ford need to do to defend their actions successfully?
Why do courts require consent decrees? What were the specifics of the consent decree in this case? (Information is available on the EEOC website in their “News” section and in other places online.)
Under what circumstances could Winner Ford justify paying Chinese employees less than non-Chinese employees and not be breaking the law? Would you recommend that they do so? Why or why not?
| Subject | Law and governance | Pages | 4 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
Re: Discrimination Case
This email concerns your actions on Zhang, the Chinese nationality who complained about lower wages as compared to his colleges who are non-Chinese nationalities. First, I would like to inform you that what you did is not only wrong but highly prohibited according to National Origin Discrimination Act. It is important to note that national origin discrimination involves treating individuals (employees or applicants) unfavorably or differently because they are from a particular part of the world or country, ethnicity, accent, or ethnic background. The National Origin Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act demands that all employees should be treated equally despite differences in place of birth, color, race, and sex (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018). In this particular incidence, it was wrong to pay Zhang and other Chinese nationalities lower wages compared to non-Chinese nationalities despite them performing the same duties. On the same note, the company and management need to employ a leadership style that accepts the opinions of others and create a conducive environment for all employees. If Zhang complained about the discrimination, it was the responsibility of the management to act according to the rule of law instead of threatening him about losing his job.
It is also important to note that what happened is workplace discrimination, and more specifically, about the origin of an employee (Liptak, A. (2019). There are several laws that protect individuals against such actions. According to the EEOC, “although the law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).” On the same note, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and applicants based on their race, religion, color, sex, and national origin. Therefore, it is important to note that several groups would have sued the company since it has violated several laws and acts of employments. I do not think that the company can do anything successfully to defend their actions, given the fact that there is evidence that both employees had the same duties, and Zhang had more experience than most of the non-Chinese nationalities
A consent decree is a formal contract or agreement created to resolve disputes between parties without either party admitting blame (Watzinger et al., 2020). The court would require a consent decree to ascertain that the company will pay Zhang and other employees without either party being blamed for the action. The specifics of a consent decree, in this case, are to assure the court that Zhang and his colleagues cannot be fired or harassed as a result of the court case.
I do not think that there is any circumstance that Winner Ford is justified to pay Chinese employees less than non-Chinese employees without breaking the law. In the event that both non-Chinese and Chinese nationalities have the same experience and perform the same duties, then both of them deserve equal treatment.
.
References
|
EEO-1 US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2018) job classification guide 2010. Liptak, A. (2019). Supreme Court to decide whether landmark civil rights law applies to gay and transgender workers. Sup. Ct. Preview, 566. O'Neill, J. L. J. (2018). US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alorica, Inc. Watzinger, M., Fackler, T. A., Nagler, M., & Schnitzer, M. (2020). How antitrust enforcement can spur innovation: Bell Labs and the 1956 Consent Decree. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(4), 328-59. |