Tags: Women Rights EssayUva Creative Writing MfaDissertation Abstract International DatabasesThesis Of BelongingSample Of Restaurant Business PlanResearch Sample Paper
For that reason, laws have been established to prevent the “unfavorable or unfair treatment due to the race, religion, national origin, disabled or veteran status, or other legally protected characteristics.” (Understanding Workplace Discrimination, 2011.) Discrimination in the workplace is prevented in many aspects of the environment including recruiting, filling positions, assessing job performance, standards pertaining to promotion, training of employees, salaries as well as disciplinary practices.This paper will discuss the numerous and flagrant violations of antidiscrimination laws presented in the case study of the Darius D’amore Fragrances, Inc.
For example, if an employer has a hair style policy that applies to all employees, it may be unlawful if the policy is not job related, and impacts a certain race due to a predisposition of natural hair types.
and the lawsuit filed against it by three of its employees on the basis of racial, gender, and disability discrimination.
It is hard to believe, in these times, that any of the reputable company, business or professional setting would continually violate its own policies regarding hiring from within whenever possible, as well as providing its employees and applicants with “equal employment opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, gender, age, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, veteran status or any other characteristic protected by law.” Its own standards of conduct list examples of forbidden behavior including racial or ethnic slurs, and guarantee the provision of reasonable accommodation consistent with the law to qualified employees and applicants with a disability (Darius D’amore, 2004.) The case example is replete with instances in which the company violated its own principles of ethical, professional, and legal behavior in relation to the three employees who filed the lawsuit: Rich Rogers, Les Ford, and Jasmine Young.
Rogers was actually asked to train the people that were hired to fill the positions for which he had applied.
In addition to that insult, the company also violated its own policy that required them to hire from within if qualified candidates existed, only going outside the departments if there were no such candidates already working in those sections. Rogers was notified that two positions for which he had applied and which would have resulted in increased pay and status had been filled with two people from outside the department.