No Steps Forward, Two Steps Back: The Fallacy of Trying to “Eradicate” Adverse Impact?

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 438-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winfred Arthur ◽  
David Woehr
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
50Th Anniversary ◽  
Adverse Impact ◽  
Unanswered Question ◽  
Employment Practices ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employment Testing ◽  
Impact Theory ◽  
Critical Issues

Within the context of the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and specifically as it pertains to the tenets of Title VII, Lindsey, King, Dunleavy, McCausland, and Jones (2013) state: “This focal article raises and addresses critical issues regarding a yet unanswered question: How can organizational researchers and practitioners contribute to the ultimate goal of eradicating employment discrimination” (p. 391). We argue that in the context of employment testing and selection, at least as per the disparate impact theory of discrimination, this question is the wrong one—certainly as framed by Lindsey et al. To the contrary, instead of holding up the "eradication of employment discrimination" as our ultimate goal, perhaps we should continue to focus on the development, implementation, and support of the best (i.e., most job-related and valid) employment practices possible.

What We Know and Don't: Eradicating Employment Discrimination 50 Years After the Civil Rights Act

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Lindsey ◽  
Eden King ◽  
Tracy McCausland ◽  
Kristen Jones ◽  
Eric Dunleavy
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Unanswered Question ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Employment Cycle

Although nearly 50 years have passed since the Civil Rights Act, employment discrimination persists. Thus, this focal article raises and addresses critical issues regarding a yet unanswered question: how can organizational researchers and practitioners contribute to the ultimate goal of eradicating employment discrimination? This article will push previous work a step forward by considering discrimination reduction tactics spanning the attraction, selection, inclusion, and retention phases of the employment cycle. Additionally, we expand our discussion of strategies to reduce discrimination beyond classically studied racial, ethnic, and gender differences. Our synthesis of this literature will inform organizational psychologists on how to address discrimination, but will also highlight the lack of evidence regarding important aspects of these strategies.

scholarly journals 'Sex' and Religion after Bostock

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sachin S. Pandya ◽  
Marcia McCormick
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Sex Discrimination ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Lower Court ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Employer Discrimination ◽  
The U.S

This paper reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). There, the Court held that by barring employer discrimination against any individual “because of such individual’s . . . sex,” Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also bars employment discrimination because an individual is gay or transgender. The paper then speculates about how much Bostock will affect how likely lower court judges will read other “sex” discrimination prohibitions in the U.S. Code in the same way, in part based on a canvass of the text of about 150 of those prohibitions. The paper also discusses the religion-based defenses that defendants may raise in response under Title VII itself, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

scholarly journals If You Build It, “They/Them” Will Come: The Misgendering of Transgender Nonbinary Athletes Is Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 312-334
Author(s):  
Kelli Rodriguez Currie
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Title Ix ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Department Of Education ◽  
Title Vii ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Inclusive Language ◽  
History Of ◽  
Recent Interpretation

This article provides necessary context to adequately engage in a discussion about transgender and nonbinary individuals, including defined terms. It then provides a brief history of Title IX, articulates the requirements for compliance with the statute, and discusses its application to transgender athletes. Next, this article provides an overview of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the recent statutory analysis of its prohibition on employment discrimination because of sex in Bostock v. Clayton County extends that analysis to the statutory language of Title IX, and summarizes the recent interpretation by the Department of Education applying that analysis to Title IX. The article then discusses the implications of the persistent misgendering of transgender nonbinary athletes and argues that only by allowing all athletes to compete as their true gender will the inclusive goals of Title IX be realized. The article concludes that the requirements for Title IX compliance are not inclusive of transgender nonbinary athletes and contradictory to the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex articulated by the statute itself. The article proposes several necessary changes to the language of those requirements for compliance and argues that the Department of Education must make changes in its interpretation toward more inclusive language to truly achieve the goals of Title IX.

Basic Legal Rights

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Employment Discrimination ◽  
Political Representation ◽  
School Desegregation ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Deep South ◽  
Civil Rights Act ◽  
Federal Judiciary

Part 3 discusses the growth of basic legal rights. In the twenty-first century it can be hard to appreciate how remarkably welcoming the federal judiciary was to the claims of the civil rights movement. Part 3 includes chapter 7, “Access to Justice”; chapter 8, “Voting Rights and Political Representation”; chapter 9, “Public Accommodations”; chapter 10, “School Desegregation and Municipal Equalization”; and chapter 11, “Employment Discrimination.” Voting rights and political representation were key. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 opened the portals for dramatic increases in black voter registration. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandated equal accommodation in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and other public places. Some applications of these rights were realized immediately, others not so much. This was the era in which the promise of the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision became a reality in the Deep South. Desegregation suits proliferated. The Supreme Court dramatically increased the pace of desegregation. The varied forms of pushback were astonishing: the shutting down of a historic black high school lest white students have to attend (even at the expense of double sessions); the hiding of athletic trophies from the historic black high school upon merger; the suspension and expulsion of many black students at the moment of desegregation. The other major accomplishment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the ban on employment discrimination. At the time of its passage, job and labor union segregation were ubiquitous in the Deep South. This all changed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document