The case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al. began in 2010, when female financial analysts (FAs) filed charges in in several states and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that the Bank of America (BoA) used discriminatory pay practices against them in violation of state laws and the U.S. Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (DiMarco, 2014; Calibuso, 2012). These laws forbid inequalities in pay (Schrimsher & Fretwell, 2012) and discriminating employment practices based on gender and other protected classes (42 U.S.C.A in Webber, 2015). The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs (DiMarco, 2014). However, legal and scholarly advice suggests that these kinds of cases can be avoided through organizational efforts in training in diversity (Bendick, Egan & Lofhjelm, 2001) and legal understanding along with professional validation of practices, and managerial accountability (Arthur & Doverspike in Malos, 2015). This writer agrees; the case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al, which involved discriminatory practices related to compensation and other employment-related acts may have been avoided by observing the advice aimed at organizational efforts in anti-discrimination in the workplace.
Case Summary
Female employees of the Bank of American filed a lawsuit in 2010 alleging that the employer engaged in gender-based discriminatory work practices against women working in FA jobs
Over the last several decades, workplace issues have become an area of controversy for most employers. This is because the regulations surrounding what practices are considered to be discriminatory have increased dramatically. To enforce these issues, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) is playing a central role in making employers follow these provisions of the law. A recent example of this occurred, with the case EEOC v. HCS Medical Staffing Inc.
After reviewing the data it is apparent the promotional rate of women in managerial positions when compared to the men is disproportional to the size of the population. This shows disparate treatment, the company hires women, but women do not promote at the same pace as men. This shows strong evidence of discrimination and if not resolved will lead to a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Discrimination continues to run rampant throughout organizations in both the United States and worldwide. The Supreme Court case, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealt with 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees that claim that they had been a victim of gender discrimination. The ensuing pages will discuss the specific issues that the plaintiffs encountered, followed by suggestions from a human resource manager’s stand point in rectifying adverse impact within the Wal-Mart organization.
The article I chose discusses possible discrimination of women working for Sterling Jewelers that has recently resurfaced in a court case. In the case, multiple women are claiming that their employers, who are owned by Sterling Jewelers, refused to give women equal chances for promotions or raises based on whether or not they would give sexual favors to the managers. The women also claim that those who reported their incidents with the managers, were ignored by Sterling Jeweler’s human resources department. If the court were to find the women’s claims to be substantial, this would be a clear example of employer discrimination because the women were not given an equal of an opportunity as men based solely on the fact that they were women (and
During the last part of this century, businesses and organizations have heavily relied on affirmative actions laws to ensure equal employment opportunities. The failure of this dependence upon legislation is that is doesn't address the full spectrum of diversity in the workplace (6). Affirmative actions laws have limitations, discriminating against people holding protected-class status such as women, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans,
In fact, progress for women and minorities in terms of both pay and power has stalled or regressed at many of the nation's biggest companies. This inequality shapes perceptions about who can or should be a leader.” (Hymowitz, 2008) This statement shows applicable reasoning as to why it is necessary to have equal pay between women and men in the workplace. When a company decides they are going to pay someone less money solely based off their gender without regards to their experience, it is discrimination and therefore the company is no longer an equal opportunity employer. Such practices need to be banned so our nation can truly say that we are all equal. Women need to form an alliance to prevent such discrimination from occurring and force our government to prohibit inequality in companies.
Women are one of the most groups being discriminated against today. They try very hard to fit in and be successful in their careers. Discrimination against women is found in many workplaces. Some managers try to fix this problem, but others just ignore it. Companies that pretend that gender discrimination doesn’t exist are usually the ones that get sued for it more often. Other companies try to avoid law suits by dealing with gender discrimination and resolving conflicts before it gets to the law suits.
The topic of minorities in the workforce and how the struggle to accomplish equal treatment in today’s workforce is nothing new to our society. For centuries we have been concerned that by bringing together our different backgrounds, skills, and experiences, as well as the many businesses of this great
In this case study, Liz Ames has come up against an all too common problem in business today: gender bias. Effectively managing racial, ethnic and gender diversity is not just a human resources issue; it is a serious business issue.
While equal rights and equal pay legislation made it illegal to discriminate “based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin“ (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011b, p. 1), the number of workplace discrimination cases continue to rise and is costing employers more than $319 million in 2010, not counting litigation (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011a). Many employers have extensive human resource organizations with a sophisticated grasp on the implications of equal rights legislation on employers, that employ professionals, like I/O psychologists and attorneys, to establish fair policies and employment practices, and decrease an employer’s risk of litigation (Aamodt, 2010). In fact, employers often perform statistical analysis of employment practices to understand whether the practice could have an adverse impact against members of a protected class. For example, testing is a practice employers use for employee selection in the hiring process; even when an employment test is determined to be reliable, valid, and cost-efficient, care is taken to assure testing predicts performance equally well for all applications (Aamodt, 2010). Because governments and corporations have a fiduciary duty to citizens and shareholders, employers should continue to care about the issue of adverse impact, but more importantly, both government and corporations have a civil responsibility to treat the members of society fairly, because societal
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm is considered the “dominant way” of understanding diversity by most organizations. It attempts to remove discrimination and create employment equality by seeking to increase diversity among employees. Progress is measured by how well the company is able to meet its diversity number goals but avoids looking deeper at the reality behind the numbers. (Thomas & Ely p. 81)
Despite the fact that the Equal Pay Act has been law since 1963, many problems inevitably arise in the administration of equal pay laws (Fisher). It has been estimated that at this current slow rate of progression in closing the gender pay gap it will be 2068 by the time men and women’s wages are equalized. It is clear that the business case, as well as the legislative case, has a significant role to play (Commission Policy Report).
In a perfect world, people would be equal in rights, opportunities, and responsibilities, despite their race or gender. In the world we live in, however, we always face all kinds of neglect based on different attributes. All over the United States, certain people treat others with prejudice because of particular features they possess. Unfortunately, prejudice and discrimination occur even in places which, by definition, should be free of all personal prejudices – specifically, in offices and other business surroundings. This tragedy is called workplace discrimination; not every unfair behavior at work, however, can be assessed as discrimination. Discrimination in the workplace happens when an employee experiences unfair treatment due to their race, gender, age, religion, marital status, national origin, disability or veteran status, or other characteristics. Discrimination is one of the largest issues people face in the workplace and it must be dealt with. The U.S. have laws and regulations on discrimination but it still often occurs. Workplace discrimination appears in hiring, training, promotion, firing, and other institutional or interpersonal treatment. Discrimination sometimes causes an employee to leave or quit the workplace, resign from a position, or in more severe cases, to commit suicide or act violently against the discriminators. Discrimination is one of the largest issues many people face in the workplace.
In the case of American Express v Square Inc, the issue is whether American Express committed any wrongdoing in their business deal with Visa. Jack Dorsey of Square Inc. is filing claims of Tortious Interference with his Contract as well as Tortious Interference with a Prospective Advantage and Defamation.