Prevention of discrimination in employment

Agency Action: VII – Prevention of Discrimination in Employment Affiliation with more information about affiliation, research grants, conflict of interest and how to contact
Agency Action:
Title VII – Prevention of Discrimination in Employment
The Congress has passed the Civil Rights Act (CTA) of 1964 to eradicate discrimination, and it is one of the “ most prominent” legislations for the protection of civil rights in the country (Feder, 2005, p. 1). While the Depart of Justice (DOJ) administers relevant provisions relating to issues of discrimination and the Department of Labor (DOL) enforces the provisions of the laws relating to “ nondiscrimination in employment” (p. 4). Title VII of the CRA seeks to prohibit all types of discrimination in employment on the grounds of “ race, color, religion, national origin, or sex” (p. 1). Subsequent amendments in the said proviso allow some exceptions such as higher pay for one gender, if it is based on merit or seniority on the case of “ fringe benefit packages” (Brenton, 2011, p. 356). This paper seeks to explore the agency action of enacting Title-VII and its impact on the aspect of discrimination in the workplace. In order to obtain a detailed understanding of these aspects, the paper will explore cases that involve this agency action and evaluate various rulings of the court to analyze the actual impact of this rule and to assess whether it has been effective in actually preventing discrimination in the workplace. Thus, this study evaluated the Wal-Mart case of alleged discrimination against women.
In Wal-Mart Vs Betty Dukes et al, the former appealed in the Supreme Court against the District Court of California ruling that Wal-Mart has engaged in “ discriminatory practices” against women employees (DeWeese & Rumpf, 2011). While Wal-Mart has argued that class certification is “ inappropriate” the women employees maintained that they “ share a common interest” and that they are all governed by the same employment rule (2011). The Supreme Court has confirmed the rights of the female employees to “ seek back pay” but also held that Wal-Mart has the discretion to “ individualized defenses” for back pay (p. 13). In the light such litigations, evidence suggests that Title-VII does not always serve the intended purpose and on occasions laws become “ severely undermined” because of the possibility for accounting for salary gaps through factors that appears non-discriminatory (Benton, 2011, p. 385).
References
Brenton, A. (2011). Overcoming the Equal Pay Act and Title-VII: Why Federal Sex Based Employment Laws should be Replaced with a System for Accrediting Employers for their Antidiscriminatory Employment Practices. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, 26 (2): 349-385.
DeWeese, N. & Rumpf, J. (2011). Wal-Mart Stores, Inc Vs Betty Dukes. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. Retrieved from Feder, J. (2005). Federal Civil Rights Statutes: A Primer. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from