The EEOC’s Role in the Lawsuit Essay

Introduction

Discriminatory practices and frustration of employees at their employment place is not a novel practice. In multinational and low level companies, the employees continue to live in fear because of persistent harassment.

Employees suffer for varied reasons including, work place discrimination, employee harassment, persecution, and reprisal. As a rejoinder, the EEOC, designed laws aimed at curbing employee mistreatment.

These laws, set to protect employees, can be broken either through prejudice or through unawareness. Breaking the decree therefore puts an organization or a company in court tussles. This piece identifies one such grievance in which EEOC sued Georgia Military College for discriminating against an employee on racial grounds.

The paper discusses compliance failure in this particular case and its ramifications on the college. In addition, the paper summarizes the functions of the U.S. EEOC and its role in the lawsuit. Further, this piece confers to the contribution of the lawsuit to social change and compares the two sources of this news. Finally, to conclude, the paper presents author’s suggestions on ways of avoiding such compliance negligence in an organization.

Lawsuit Chosen: “Georgia Military College Sued by EEOC for Race Discrimination”

The employee lawsuit picked hit the news bulletin on 21 January 2011 stating that EEOC had sued Georgia Military College for disregarding federal laws by transgressing upon an employee racially. According to EEOC, the college had allegedly subordinated Solomon Mosley of African – American origin to an employment surrounding that was racially intimidating for a period of four years.

The proceedings undeniably have consequences on the college. The college stands a big chance of experiencing a slump in its significance. With news of the discrimination against employees being a public domain, the college will be under scrutiny. It will lose its image and standard may go down because of unrestricted confession of intellectual wealth.

The college may invest time and finances on litigations at the expense of building the college. The case will ensure that the institution spends on appointing an attorney to handle the case on behalf of its authorities apart from satisfying other standing court charges.

The lawsuit may also invite unconstructive stakeholder rejoinder, hurting a range of other participation. Furthermore, the institution’s management may let shareholders down who might close it in any case; overheads of litigation threaten fiscal expectations.

Functions of EEOC

The U.S EEOC is a government agency in charge of implementing federal laws illegalizing the practice of employers’ intolerance against staff and potential workforce. EEOC seeks to protect employees against bias on issues including origin, color, belief, sexual category, ethnic origin, disability, singling out, and bias at their employment places.

The agency also provides practical aid, plans, and creates awareness to thwart abuse of works before they arise. Furthermore, EEOC, offer help to federal agencies regarding equal employment prospect initiatives apart from faculty building on decrees, compliance, and adjudication of appeals on opinions provided on its complaints. Finally, it scrutinizes charges of oppression leveled against companies applying its regulations.

The EEOC’s Role in the Lawsuit

In the lawsuit against Georgia Military College, EEOC observed that the college enhanced prejudice tendencies against an employee on the grounds of race. This offense attracts litigations for compromising “Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act”. The initial role of the watchdog was to settle the allegation by assuaging the management, though it reports this flopped.

Therefore, EEOC took the issue to the next level, filing a suit at the U.S District Court on behalf of the personnel. Further, it made request that the court take punitive measures against the college and pay costs for hurting the employee. Finally, it requested a ruling on alleviation of future occurrences of comparable maltreatment. In principle, the commission worked to help the employee.

Contribution of Lawsuit to Social modification

Reflecting that, racial oppression negates the interest of multicultural appreciation of people we meet, this lawsuit was vital. In my scrutiny, the world is changing too fast and globalization is contributing to integration of economy, labor market, technology, and knowledge, discrimination is therefore uncalled-for. In addition, people need to embrace one another and exist in accord.

However, some people reduce these desires by perpetrating intolerance having far-reaching consequences on social harmony. Therefore, a lawsuit of this nature would believably improve relations among races. Achieving this would be a great boost to building and strengthening social transformation to enable a better world where everyone is liberated. This lawsuit advances societal change.

Comparison of the EEOC Press Release to GpB News

The news as relayed to the public on GpB News and released on press by EEOC, a few comparisons is tenable. Initially, I noted the news agency reported, the college administrators were uninformed of the complaint while the commission’s press release indicates it tried to settle the case through reconciliation method, which flopped.

Both news contradict and confuse people. In addition, the news title in GpB News is much shorter and leaves out certain details. However, on EEOC newsroom press releases, the title is detailed and undemanding to comprehend. In addition, the newsroom reduced the words used by EEOC but retained the meaning.Conclusion

Employee sufferings at work place have constituted the news headlines. Employers subject their workforce to varying prejudicial service conditions. Workers protection endeavors in the U.S are fronted by EEOC. EEOC works vigorously with some organizations and companies, which have subscribed to execute the outfits regulations on workers protection.

This piece discussed a lawsuit filed by EEOC in which a training college violated rights of an employee to work in a safe working situation. Further, it recommended activities to avert any mistreatment of workers in an organizational setting.