You are on page 1of 1

Today, the EEOC continues to enforce laws and amendments that protect individuals in the business environment.

Education institutions, private employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations with 15 or more employees benefit from the coverage of Title VII (EEOC, 2009). Regardless of the classification an employee possesses, governmental and nongovernmental employees can receive coverage eligibility equally. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 further extended Title VIIs coverage to United States citizens employed by American employers outside the United States (BennettAlexander, and Hartman, 2007). Individuals without United States citizenship are eligible for coverage if they do not go outside the United States. Comparatively, Title VII has only a few exemptions. Organizations that perform business operations close to a Native Indian reservation cannot allow Native Americans to receive any form of preference for employment. Bennett-Alexander and Harman (2007) stated Employees of religious institutions, associations, or corporations hired to perform work connected with carrying on religious activities (p. 81). Employees who work for an organization that has fewer than 15 workers or is a member of a Communist organization do not have coverage under the Title VII. Furthermore, non-United States citizens who work for an American organization in another country like China cannot benefit from the coverage of Title VII for protection.
For an individual to make a claim about discrimination against an employer, he or she may use disparate treatment or disparate impact. To obtain coverage and represent a strong case under the Title VII, the claim must fall within the boundaries of the two theories. Bennett-Alexander and Hartman (2007) define disparate treatment as treating a similarly situated employee differently because of prohibited Title VII factors (p. 88). An employees claim of disparate treatment may be a justified claim if he or she obviously receives different treatment compared to other employees in reference to gender. For example, Rhonda and Bo are employees at a local advertising agency. Both of them are exceptional employees. Rhonda and Bo decide to skip work to go to a concert together out of town. Unlike Bo, Rhonda does not have a poor attendance record. Details of the trip become an issue at work and Rhonda loses her job but Bo does not. Under the Title VII, Rhonda can make a disparate treatment claim because her attendance record and gender are the only differences between her and Bo. Disparate treatment is deliberate discrimination by the employer. Because of the intentional discrimination, punitive damages may be sought as a type of compensation for the employee. Disparate impact is a form of subtle discrimination. The Website for USLegal Definitions (2010) define disparate impact as a legal phrase used in employment law to describe when a facially neutral practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class (p. 1). An applicants claim of disparate impact may be valid claim if he or she cannot receive an employment opportunity with the organization because of age. For example, a seasoned female and younger male apply for an executive position with the same qualifications. By word of mouth, the younger male obtains the position because of his family friendship with the Chief Executive Officer. The seasoned female has every right to make a claim for investigative purposes involving the hiring process. An organizations hiring process may seem to be neutral but the outcome discriminates against a protected class. Disparate impact discrimination is harder to prove than disparate treatment. Penalties resulting from disparate impact discrimination are usually less severe than those resulting from disparate treatment discrimination