Case studies about discrimination in the workplace

In August of 2018, a young woman was hired to become the shipping manager for a small printing company. She is 26 years old, has a boyfriend that she is living with, and has plans to get married and have children, eventually. The general manager of the company was not included in resume selection, interview process, or the training of the young woman, but did do an initial welcome interview when she was hired. After he had met with her and had some time to get to know her a little bit, he was disgruntled at the human resources manager for hiring someone who would need time off for a wedding and for children sometime in the future. He approached the human resources manager and told her “Next time you decide to hire someone, hire a young able-bodied man so we don’t have to worry about him taking time off for personal reasons”. The tricky part in this scenario is that the general manager did not actually say these things to the female employee but to the female human resources manager. The comments that were said, made the female human resource manager uncomfortable because she too, may have a future situation like the one he is ridiculing the shipping manager for.

            This young woman was discriminated against since she was planning for her future as a wife and a mother. Regardless of her plans, or any female employed by the company, the discrimination took place because she is a woman, and once she decides to have children, she will need to utilize medical leave in order to give birth to her children. The human resources manager also shares in the same scenario, to which the GM has now openly given his criticism. The general manager in this case has decided that she would not be a good fit for the position because she will have weightlifting limitations and will have to take time off work. His comments and actions are sexist because he has already decided that she is not fit for the position for reasons that have not even happened yet.  The comments made by the manager could potentially be a serious liability for the company, and an immediate investigation must be done to determine whether or not legal action should be taken against him. According to a case settlement against the Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. in 2015, The company continued to discriminate between 2006 thru 2014, whereas the company subjected countless women to sexual harassment and/or various forms of sex discrimination. Con Edison was blatantly discriminating against women Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “This agreement sends a clear message to employers across New York State: All women, including those working in male-dominated workplaces, are entitled to equal justice under the law.” United States EEOC (Press Release 9-2015). Although this case is an extreme example, it gives a clear understanding of how the behavior of the general manager is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This case is one of the thousands of different scenarios that continue to happen daily.  

Investigating Discriminatory Actions

            A case like the example shown is a lot easier to investigate because it was extreme discrimination and most of the circumstances were well documented. However, as shown by the amount of time that these women were given disparate treatment, it took many years to finally determine that Con Edison was engaging in illegal actions. The situation that is occurring with the new female shipping manager, as well as the human resources manager, will continually be more difficult to prove sexual discrimination, and senior management will have a difficult time trying to prove the blatant abuse of power by the general manager. According to a recent study, “researchers surveyed about 6,000 U.S. military employees, and in their findings, they showed that reporting incidents of harassment often triggered retaliation. Under such conditions, it’s no wonder that for many of these employees, the most “reasonable” thing to do was to avoid reporting.” (Dessler, G., 2016). At this point, the shipping manager is not aware of the statements made by the GM, but the comments made by him have put the human resources manager in an uncomfortable position, as the comments that were made could potentially be directed at her in the near future as well.

In situations such as this, employers are legally obligated to investigate complaints (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, safety, and ethics) in a timely manner. In addition, any appropriate corrective action is required to be taken by the employer to ensure illegal actions and behaviors cease immediately. (SHRM, 2018). One major problem with this case is that it has yet to happen. The comments made by the general manager have not come into play yet, but if and or when it does, he will have violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. This law was put in place in order to protect women’s rights in the workforce. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, therefore, “Women affected by a pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work”. (EEOC, 1978).  

Conclusion

The human resources department has been put in place to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and equally, and to make sure that equal opportunity employment always occurs. The role of human resources management involves documentation of employee grievances, terminations, absences, performance reports, timekeeping of vacation and sick time, and compensation and benefits information. When any type of sexual discrimination or harassment happens, it is typically reported to the HR administration. In this case, however, the HR manager has been indirectly discriminated against, so an outside investigator should be.

Author: Sarah Hendriksen from West Valley City