The legal history of work-related sexual harassment and implications for employers

Over the years, the courts have come to consider sexual harassment as a kind of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers are held liable for sexual harassment, and have an affirmative action obligation to eliminate sexual harassment from the workplace. The courts and the EEOC Guidelines have defined sexual harassment as tangible employment consequences or behavior that creates a hostile or offensive working environment. Employers can limit their liability by creating a system to detect sexual harassment and to remedy it promptly. Suggestions to wards developing a strong policy to eliminate sexual harassment from the workplace are given.     

Who is at Greatest Risk of Work-Related Discrimination—Women, Blacks, or Homosexuals?

This study was developed to examine whether bias against women, blacks, and homosexuals emerges in predictable patterns when raters are presented with hiring scenarios. We instructed the research sample to hire six of eight candidates for an accounting position. Eight candidates were necessary to offer the full range of gender, race, and sexual orientation combinations. Requiring the research sample to select six of the eight candidates meant that each respondent would have to discriminate by eliminating the two candidates they considered the least desirable. We found that a black, male homosexual is the most likely target of discrimination and the white, female heterosexual is the least likely to be discriminated against. If it develops that these findings hold across a wide range of work-related decisions and samples, such results would support the argument for maintaining affirmative action for blacks and extending civil-rights protection to gays and lesbians.     

Employment equity policy frames in the literature: ‘good practice’ versus ‘bad idea’

Work organisations considering policies against racial or ethnic discrimination and for recognising diversity can find many different and often conflicting recommendations in the literature, in particular regarding the aim of proportional representation of different ethnic groups. To better understand this controversy, this paper rigorously examines three key theories from a frame-critical and business ethics perspective. It introduces a fundamental threefold conceptualisation of ‘employment equity policy’ (EEP) as a catch-all term for related concepts such as ‘affirmative action’, ‘equal opportunities policy’ and ‘diversity management’, distinguishing between three different organisational goals: equal treatment, equal results and individual recognition. The analysis suggests that different authors emphasise some ‘facts’ rather than others and strategically interpret the limited available empirical research to support their policy positions, mixing both classical and newer ethical reasoning. In the ‘good practice’ frame, human resource management practitioners are urged to take ‘positive action’, to monitor the ethnic composition of the workforce and to formulate target figures to increase the representation of discriminated groups. In the opposing ‘bad idea’ frame, organisations are seriously advised against EEPs with ‘hard’ numerical goals: these policies supposedly are unnecessary and ineffective and have negative unintended consequences. The article draws implications from these findings for future research and practice in the field of EEPs.     

文化社会学视野下的欧美竞技体育领域种族歧视

本文从文化和社会学角度观察欧美竞技领域有色人种运动员的处境与遭遇,总结、归纳出竞技体育领域种族歧视的表现形式和形成的深层次原因,提出了要在竞技体育领域消除种族歧视的若干建议。     

The continuing need for affirmative action

Affirmative action is defined as the steps taken to end the absence in jobs, schools, and honored positions of members of groups that have been subordinated. Its purpose is to reduce discrimination, to reduce income disparities between groups, and to promote diversity by gender and race in every role and activity. The persistence of occupational segregation by sex and race to a degree that cannot be explained by differences in qualifications or voluntary behavior testifies to the need for further action. Alternatives to affirmative action, such as helping people regardless of race or sex from disadvantaged backgrounds, “just enforcing the law against discrimination”, or waiting for educational improvements to bring groups better qualifications would not do the job affirmative action is designed to do.     

Racial harassment: Case characteristics and employer responsibilities

This article examines the socio-business issue of racial harassment in the workplace. For two decades, the federal judiciary has been defining and refining the elements of the offense within the parameters of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments for the first and only time on one of the important aspects of the developing doctrine focused considerable attention on this workplace problem in 1989. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 provides limited money damages to victims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, whereas Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides unlimited damages to the victims of discrimination and race harassment. The authors discuss the legislative and judicial foundations of race harassment with respect toPatterson v. McLean, provide a profile and analysis of racial harassment cases (1971–1987), and conclude with a discussion of employer liability and recommendations for management.     

Broadening the Definition of Unlawful Retaliation Under Title VII

Title VII retaliation cases have become a larger part of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) caseload, and this development should be a growing concern for business. By addressing the question of exactly when a prohibited retaliatory action has been taken against an employee, the United States Supreme Court’s June 2006 decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Sheila White ended a significant disagreement among the various appellate courts on the issue. The Supreme Court answered two specific questions regarding retaliation for raising a claim of sexual discrimination. First, the Court decided that the retaliatory conduct need not take place within the employment setting; and, second, it held that a materially adverse action requires only that a reasonable employee would be deterred from making, filing, or supporting a claim of workplace discrimination to the EEOC, the courts, or the employer. Employers need to revise and update their internal policies and procedures to ensure that their firms comply with these new standards.     

Do city climate plans reduce emissions?

More than 600 local governments in the US are developing climate action plans that lay out specific measures to reduce emissions from municipal operations, households and firms. To date, however, it is unclear whether these plans are being implemented or have any causal effects on emissions. Using data from California, I provide the first quantitative analysis of the impacts of climate plans. I find that cities with climate plans have had far greater success in implementing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than their counterparts without such plans. For example, they have more green buildings, spend more on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and have implemented more programs to divert waste from methane-generating landfills. I find little evidence, however, that climate plans play any causal role in this success. Rather, citizens’ environmental preferences appear to be a more important driver of both the adoption of climate plans and the pursuit of specific emission reduction measures. Thus, climate plans are largely codifying outcomes that would have been achieved in any case.     

Major EEO issues relating to personnel selection decisions

This paper examines recent EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) case law precedents relating to personnel selection, most notably hiring, training, promotion and downsizing. The statutes referenced include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Constitutional claims, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA-91), and Executive Order 11246 on Affirmative action. Seven topics are featured, including: (I) disparate treatment theory, (II) adverse impact theory in the ADEA, (III) adverse impact theory in Title VII, (IV) affirmative action based on operational needs, (V) key ADA rulings and the ADA amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), (VI) retaliation, and (VII) mandatory binding arbitration agreements. The case law surveyed reveals costly mistakes employers and HR managers can make, but which can be avoided with proper methods and policies. Some issues may require professional help (e.g., developing and validating selection tests), whereas others (e.g. retaliation), can be addressed in-house with knowledge of policies and procedures recommended by the EEOC to prevent problems from occurring, and to quickly correct them if they occur.     

经验、激励因素对审计判断中肯定性倾向的影响——财务报表错报程度判断的一项实验研究

通过实验和统计分析对审计判断中经验、激励因素与肯定性倾向之间的关系进行研究后发现,不同经验层次的审计人员的审计判断倾向程度均有差异,经验水平偏低者和经验水平偏高者都存在明显的肯定性倾向,而经验丰富者则具有明显的否定性倾向;同时,当外界存在不同激励时,审计人员会有不同的反应,即使是同一经验层次的审计人员也有不同的反应,经验水平偏高者尤甚。这不仅可以解释不同学者得出不同结论的原因,而且在一定程度上揭示相关因素对审计师职业判断和审计程序的影响,同时也为审计界提供有益的启示。     

英语中非肯定意义的肯定句

在英语表示中,有些形式上是肯定句的句子却表达否定的意义,这些非肯定意义的肯定句按完全否定意义与局部否定意义的不同,一般都会有表示否定意义的词,词组或习惯表示法等表示其否定意义。     

Addressing the Growing Inadequacies of the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Ellerth</Emphasis>/<Emphasis Type="Italic">Faragher</Emphasis> Affirmative Defense: Fashioning a Sensible and Feasible Solution

Public policy seeks an equitable balance between the rights and duties of both employers and employees in creating a workplace free of sexual harassment. This goal is particularly difficult to achieve when supervisors create a hostile work environment. The U.S. Supreme Courts decisions in Ellerth and Faragher created an affirmative defense against vicarious liability for employers, but subsequent applications of these rulings have been inconsistent and problematic. Courts and legislators need to (1) choose the appropriate standard of employer liability for sexual harassment committed by supervisors, and (2) decide what, if any, defenses are available to employers when employees bring claims of sexual harassment. We conclude that holding employers strictly liable while allowing for the limitation of damages based on avoidable consequences, as recently adopted by the California Supreme Court in McGinnis, is preferable to other liability standards and defenses.