Equal employment opportunities are to be provided to all applicants and employees, regardless of their gender, race, age, and other characteristics. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was founded in 1965 in order to guarantee that the equality in the workplace is guaranteed for all employed Americans, along with individuals seeking the employment (Ruszkowski, 2019). The purpose of this paper is to explain the functions of the EEOC, to discuss the recent case related to the EEOC, to assess non-compliance issues, to explain associated procedures, and to analyze possible sanctions.
General Functions and Authority of the EEOC
The EEOC was established in 1965 as a response to the adoption of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964). According to the principles and statements of the Civil Rights Act, it was necessary to guarantee that all Americans were provided with the equal opportunity regarding their employment chances (Remington, Heiser, Smythe, & Sovereign, 2012). Today, the EEOC, as a federal agency, works to enforce the Civil Rights Act and associated employment laws to prevent the cases of discrimination in the workplace (Baumle, Badgett, & Boutcher, 2020; Ruszkowski, 2019). Thus, the key functions of the EEOC include the administration and control over employer-employee relationships in terms of providing the equal opportunity (Remington et al., 2012). If there are cases of discrimination related to a person’s gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, among other aspects, the US EEOC enforces the related laws in order to address the problematic case.
Overview of the Chosen EEOC Case
In order to understand how the EEOC realizes its goals and objectives to serve the needs of the US population, it is necessary to focus on examining one of the employment cases. Northern Arizona Orthopedics (NAO) was sued by the US EEOC because the medical provider hired two women for the positions in the company instead of men who had more qualifications and experience (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). One of the male applicants complained to face the sex and gender discrimination because of NAO’s activities (Remington et al., 2012; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). Furthermore, it was also reported that NAO prohibited the mentioned candidate to apply for other positions in the organization as a reaction to his lawsuit. This situation attracted the attention of the specialists working for the EEOC.
The EEOC Non-Compliance Issues Related to the Case
The problem under evaluation is that the conduct of NAO’s authorities directly violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Title VII, gender discrimination in any form is prohibited in organizations. Furthermore, according to this law, the retaliation of an individual for complaining about the case of discrimination is also prohibited (Remington et al., 2012). As a result, with the focus on these non-compliance issues, the EEOC sued NAO (EEOC vs. Northern Arizona Orthopedics Limited, no. 3:19-cv-08259-DWL) (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). NAO demonstrated the discriminatory conduct because of selecting female candidates in contrast to male candidates to take certain positions. The selection was made based on applicants’ gender, but this approach is prohibited according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Procedures Applied by the EEOC When Investigating and Handling the Case
In order to investigate and resolve the discussed case, the EEOC applied typical procedures and processes. It was important to review the complaint of the male applicant who filed the lawsuit against NAO (Remington et al., 2012; Ruszkowski, 2019). The EEOC paid much attention to assessing the nature of NAO’s actions in relation to the male applicant’s case in order to conclude regarding the possible violation of the equal opportunity legislation (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). The communication with the male candidate to investigate the case details was also important at that stage. The next step was the contact with NAO in order to discuss the ways of resolving the situation. It was also necessary to examine the hiring practices followed in the organization in order to predict the violation of the anti-discriminatory laws in other spheres of relations between the employer and employees (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). It is important to guarantee that all employees working at NAO, as well as other organizations, are hired and treated equally, regardless of their demographic features or attributes.
Sanctions and Punishments That the EEOC May Impose on the Employer
For non-compliance with the norms of the employment legislation and equal opportunity laws, the EEOC may impose a range of effective sanctions or punishment measures. One should determine the measures that are applied by the EEOC, such as fines and restrictions (Baumle et al., 2019; Remington et al., 2012). For the discussed case involving NAO, the set fine was equal to $165,000 paid to the discriminated applicants (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). The company was also required to send the letters of apology to candidates who were rejected because of the organization’s ineffective hiring policy. Furthermore, according to the consent decree signed in October 2019, NAO was required to predict the further discrimination of employees by realizing certain changes. It is critical for NAO to revise the current policies regarding the guarantee of the equal opportunity for employees and the hiring process. Additionally, the company is obliged to provide effective training for employees to inform them regarding Title VII, as well as the anti-discrimination legislation (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2019). These punitive measures were developed for NAO in order to ensure that the cases of discrimination will be prevented in the future.
Conclusion
The analysis of the EEOC case has indicated one of the typical non-compliance issues, the procedures applied by the organization, as well as the sanctions used to address the problem. The discussed case is related to the issue of discrimination in the process of hiring employees because of their sex or gender. This type of discrimination is prohibited according to the US laws. In this context, the EEOC’s task is to guarantee that all individuals are granted the right to equal opportunity when they seek for a position in any company. When referring to the discussed case, it is important to note that the EEOC set for NAO the following sanctions. One is the revision of the current human resource management policy related to the hiring process. The second is the provision of adequate training for employees regarding the employment legislation. The final is the provision of the payment for discriminated applicants. These steps are essential to guarantee that discrimination will not be experienced by employees of NAO in the future, and the equal opportunity will be granted for them.
References
Baumle, A. K., Badgett, M. L., & Boutcher, S. (2020). New research on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination: Effect of state policy on charges filed at the EEOC. Journal of homosexuality, 67(8), 1135-1144.
Remington, J., Heiser, R. T., Smythe, C., & Sovereign, K. (2012). Human resources law (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.
Ruszkowski, K. R. (2019). Defining sex-based discrimination among strife between the Justice Department and the EEOC. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 19(3-4), 200-215.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2019).Northern Arizona Orthopedics to pay $165,000 to settle EEOC sex discrimination and retaliation suit. Web.