PSY 6430 Unit 2. Legal Issues Continued Schedule Tonight and Monday: Lecture Wednesday, 1/28: Exam. Supreme Court. 92 District Courts. SO1: Court structure, Title VII cases Title VII cases are tried in the federal court system. 9 justices. 3 judges. 1 judge.
PSY 6430 Unit 2
Legal Issues Continued
Tonight and Monday: Lecture
Wednesday, 1/28: Exam
92 District Courts
Eleven Courts of Appeals Corresponding to Eleven Circuits
(MI is in the 6th; in most cases, trials heard by judges, not juries: click; CRA1991 permits trials intentional disc when compensatory
Or punitive damages. Different laws in different parts of the country until a case reaches the Supreme Court- most liberal, 9th, CA notorious)
(in 1990, OFCCP decided, based on statistics from WMU, to skip the first two and go directly to third step - conciliation agreement. It was lifted in 1995 -
I’ll talk more about that in a few minutes)
(NY State Court system, job analysis and needed access to those data so I could develop a representative sample, the AA officer refused to give them
to me. I eventually got it, but had to go to Personnel Director and have him fight the battle with the AA office; AA office usually is separate from personnel)
(company has not been proven guilty in court; read some of WMU’s conciliation agreement; Abercombie and Fitch Consent Decree, Home Depot)
(I am going to jump ahead here - because of the relevancy of SO20; here are some figures - why on earth would companies settle for these
(A&F - equal opportunity discriminator - all but white males)
(How I met David; student came to me describing a situation that clearly suggested harassment, hostile environment, seeking my advice.
Next time, I handled it differently - but at what point and what do you say to a student?)
(so these are the ones that “made it through” the company’s administrative procedures)
1.These guidelines were “hammered” out and approved by all of the federal agencies involved in EEO and AA compliance (1978)
Prior to this, both EEOC and Dept. of Labor (OFCCP) had issued separate guidelines that conflicted.
Selection specialists could not conform to both with respect to some procedures.
Imagine the confusion.
(I was actually in this situation at PA - we were a semi-private, semi-public organization, subject to both EEOC and
OFCCP guidelines, yet we couldn’t satisfy both. And, remember what the stakes are for violating the law….)
2. While not legally binding, the courts give “great deference” to the guidelines. The courts have ruled that these guidelines will be used as a “checklist” for the appropriateness of selection procedures.
(when we get to the professional development/requirements for selection procedures, particularly the job analysis, they are based on these
1.If they can be learned during a relatively brief training period - within 6 months
2.KSAs from higher level jobs are only acceptable if
(Many companies want to test for higher level skills, particularly if there is a strong hire from within policy. However…political hot potato in orgs)
(type of cut-off score, major implications for the type of validity procedure you use and hence the type of job analysis; cover this now and again later)
(managers have trouble with this one, by the way - input with respect to who is going to be working for them)
If you use these approaches not only do you have to show that your selection procedures are job related, but also that those who score higher on the exam/procedure will also perform better on the job
There is only ONE way to do that - statistics, empirical validation
*Remember, the laws are only relevant if adverse impact exists
(often ignored by organizations)
Every individual is treated the same and every individual who is equally qualified has an equal opportunity for employment, promotions, etc.
(SO11 deals with the 3 situations where a company would adopt an AA program - briefly review difference between EEO and AA)
Redresses historical imbalances and increases number of minorities hired in the work place at a faster rate than what would occur simply through EEO
*I’ll talk about this more in a moment - SO 13
It is unlawful to fail or refuse to hire any individual with respect to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Further, “nothing in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer to grant preferential treatment to any individual.”
(what about white males who are not hired because a member of a protected class is given preference?
(they have at times, won “admission” law suits, but those are different laws: next slide)
The Supreme Court has ruled that the intention of the framers of Title VII was to protect individuals who have been subjected to unfair discrimination in the past.
Because white males do not fall into that category, the Supreme Court ruled that they are not entitled to file a lawsuit under Title VII.
White males can challenge the legality of voluntary AA programs.
(CRA of 1991 makes it virtually impossible for white males to challenge court-ordered AA programs, negating an earlier decision of the Supreme Court)
(Back to SO12A&B’ last point, imagine the company – the court ordered and approved an AA program – white males challenged it, and
the Supreme Court said it was OK for the males to challenge the legality of the AA program – that was corrected in the CRA 1991.
Quintessential case demonstrating complexity
*hiring quotas are now illegal; goals are not, but quotas are
(all’s well that ends well – this started in 1977)
It is unlawful to use protected status characteristicas a motivating factor* in selection.
You cannot have an AA program without using protected status as a motivating factor, hence the CRA 1991 calls into question the legality of voluntary AA programs.
* “Motivating factor” is an extremely important term here
(language of the CRA that poses the problem for AA programs; remember Gatewood, Field & Barrick: we know what is not legal; but not what is legal)
(can’t use it at all; good luck on that one! They meant well)
In addition, the goals, if there are any, must be connected in some way to the degree of imbalance.
They cannot completely bar advancement or hire of the majority group; quota systems are NOT legal (goals are OK, quotas are not)
(love the language - trammel!!; 50-50 hiring quota, a white can be completely denied the opportunity for advancement)
This is because they are designed to eliminate an historical balance, not maintain a balance
Is the fact that AA programs must be temporary inconsistent with the fact that the OFCCP laws require
government contractors to have an AA plan?
That is, how can a program be both required and temporary?
If there is no adverse impact (no manifest imbalance),
then there is no AA program, because an AA program must only be used to correct manifest imbalances.
Essentially, if there is not a historical imbalance, then an AA program is not required
(skipping SOs 15-16, unless questions/comments; multi-step)
Court ruled that CT had unfairly discriminated against blacks because the first step in the selection process, the written test, had adverse impact
Title VII prohibits employment practices that deprive “any individual of employment opportunities.” Thus, the focus is on the individual, not the group.
Title VII does not permit individuals to be told that they have not been wronged because other other persons of their race or sex were hired
If the organization is using a multi-step selection process, each step must be examined and must be nondiscriminatory (not have adverse impact)
(last slide on Sos)
(Sos 22-28 just describe some EEO lawsuits; also have some articles in the course pack)
Unit 2: The End