Introduction
The EEOC’s main responsibility is to ensure that the employers adhere to job applicants’ discrimination laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, nationality, genetic formation or disability. In addition to this, the EEOC protect employees who had earlier complained about discrimination from being barred to obtain employment. Being the duty to protect employees from discrimination, the commission filed a case against Modesto thrift store for laying off an employee, Chris Cherling, who had been diagnosed with epilepsy. The government should make any form of discrimination illegal in order to improve equality and enhance the lives of the minority people in the society.
The commission covers employers having a minimum of fifteen employees, while employers with at least twenty employees for age discrimination. The commission’s laws are applicable to all work types and situations including promotions, hiring, harassments, firing, wages, training and benefits. It also has the authority to scrutinize discrimination charges against employers that the law covers. The commission’s task is to guarantee just and precise appraisal of the allegations and making a fair finding. If the commission finds presence of discrimination in the case, it tries to settle the charges accordingly. It is important to note that the commission does not always file lawsuits against all cases that it finds discrimination.
Discussion
Recently, the commission initiated a charge against Modesto thrift store for firing an employee with epilepsy. The lawsuit attracted $50,000 settlement charges to the employee, who had only worked a few weeks for the family owned store. The lawsuit claims included an allegation that the store violated a disability act by firing Chris Cherling, who had epilepsy. The commission argued that Judy Schultz, the store’s former owner, should have asked Chris to undertake a fitness test or show medical proof that he is capable of performing stocking duties. Instead, the owner depended on her own judgments to determine that Cherling’s condition was dangerous. The commission also issues statements from Chris, reporting how the firing affected him and how unfair it was, for the store to fire him because of epilepsy. According to Chris, epilepsy had never barred him from successfully completing his tasks. The EEOC’s attorney, Debra Smith, facilitated the settlements and supported the case by providing proof of people with epilepsy being able to work effectively (Harvey & Allard, 2009).
Through the commission’s attorney of San Francisco, William Tamayo, the EEOC reports that epilepsy affects everyone, in different ways, and to varying degrees. Because of this, it would be fundamentally dangerous to assume that seizures disqualify an individual’s ability to perform a duty. The commission also reported that approximately, two million Americans have epilepsy. Hence, winning this case was relevant to promoting a change in the perception of people suffering from epilepsy. In addition to this, the case helped epileptic people to live with no fear of discrimination. Knowing that the law protects epileptic people empowers such people to focus on their abilities. Employers will also be aware not to discriminate people without obtaining medical or formal evidence of their inability to perform a task. This promotes equality and acceptance in the workplace and in the society. By offering these chances, employers ensure that everyone remains economically gainful, hence reducing poverty and dependence on resources.
On September 19, 2011, Employment law blog reported the same news story covering the Modesto lawsuit. According to the release by the EEOC, the store fired Cherling, claiming that due to his epileptic condition, he posed a danger to himself and others. This was an unfair judgment because the store’s managers and owners had not obtained medical proof to demonstrate Cherling’s inability. The release also reported Cherling claiming that he had previously worked well despite being epileptic. The news item analysed the case by providing facts on how the EEOC handles the lawsuit, reasons for the lawsuit as well as the report that the EEOC provided, regarding the case. There are many similarities regarding the news item and the EEOC press release (Miller, Vandome & John, 2010).
The news item reports everything that the EEOC press release reported, providing verbatim responses, quotations and arguments. In addition to these, the news introduces the issue by providing a background of employment discrimination laws, the function of the EEOC and the rights of the discriminated individuals. The news item refers the entire story to the release; by connecting, are statements to the commission. On the other hand, the commission’s press release provided the information first hand, using findings from attorneys, the hearings and the final settlement. The news item reports the story from of secondary information, while the EEOC press release provides a form of primary data.
There are several ways to prevent discrimination in a multicultural work environment. Organizations must first understand what the law categorizes as workplace discrimination, and learn the categories of people that anti-discriminatory laws cover. Once this is clear to the organization, it must develop a no tolerance policy regarding discrimination and harassment. The organization should put this policy in writing, and ensure that all employees access and read it. The policy should describe an action plan illustrating the procedures for investigating complaints and consequences of being guilty. It is also helpful for organizations to provide a procedure for relaying discrimination complaints. An important strategy for stopping future discrimination is for organizations to provide training for all employees regarding sexual harassments and diversity. The training clarifies inappropriate behaviours and provides tips and solutions of how a multicultural workplace can work as a team successful. These tips help in cases where the employer may be unaware of discrimination in the organization. The strategies help in informing all employees of the organization’s stand regarding discrimination.
Organizational leaders can also use various techniques to ensure compliance with the equal employment laws. These techniques should exhibit the importance of inclusiveness and encourage upper management levels to promote diversity. Organizations should encourage employees to inform the management any traces of discrimination that the company may be unaware of their existence (Schaefer, 2011).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the EEOC protects the interests of employees against discrimination. The commission’s mandate is to ensure that employers adhere to the anti discriminatory laws, as well as ensuring enforcement of actions against those that fails to comply. This paper has analyzed the functions of the EEOC by relating to the recent case involving Modesto retailer store. The commission, on behalf of a former employee, Chris Cherling, filed a lawsuit against the store, for firing him due to his epileptic condition. The commission had found this act discriminatory because the storeowners had not determined Cherling’s ability to perform his duties effectively. The lawsuit guaranteed that the store paid a fine of $50, 000 to Cherling. In addition to this, the paper has also discussed the strategies of preventing discrimination in the workplace, the relation of a news item to the EEOC press release and importance of the case in promoting social change.
References
Harvey, C. P., & Allard, M. J. (2009). Understanding and Managing Diversity. New York: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & John, M. (2010). Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. New York: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller.
Schaefer, R. T. (2011). Racial and ethnic Groups. Michigan: Foresman/Little Brown Higher Education.