Introduction
Discrimination in a workplace is any restriction or preference based on gender, age, race, religion, and other grounds unrelated to the business qualities of the employee. If this happens, the candidate can apply to the court with a demand to compensate him for material and moral damage. One of the most common reasons for refusal of employment is gender discrimination (Nigro et al., 2014). Both men and women are subjected to this type of discrimination, depending on the specifics of the vacancy. Some types of work related to physical activity, such as the loader, builder, etc., are taken exclusively by men for obvious reasons (Sifunda-Evelia, 2017). Jobs that employ only women are usually associated with external characteristics or, for some reason, are considered suitable only for the female, for example, a nanny, a hostess, and others. Though if to talk about vacancies that are in no way related to a specific gender, women under thirty are most often rejected for employment due to discrimination (Nigro et al., 2014). In the case under consideration, the problem was that the plaintiff was a man who judged that the transport agency did not correctly take his gender into account when deciding on a promotion.
Facts
In the case of Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987), the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency adopted a Plan to hire and promote women and men through the career ladder. The Agency has the authority to take gender into account when searching for professionals. Plaintiff Paul Johnson appealed to the court that when hiring for a workplace, the Agency violated several civil rights laws that restrict employees from being able to hire people of one gender or another for a particular position. The Plan adopted by the Agency aims to help promote women and minorities within certain positions. Initially, the importance of adopting a Plan is dictated by the need to hire often discriminated categories of professionals. The man filed a lawsuit that the employer violated the Civil Rights Act and determined the factor of hiring employees of only a particular gender (Bilan et al., 2020). The Plan did not set clear boundaries on the number of employed staff, but in one case, it refused a man a position to attract a female employee to work.
In the Plan presented by the Agency, the main directions were to provide jobs to women since the proportion of employed women is at a low level. In addition, the Plan provided for the involvement of employees of different ethnic minorities, who were incredibly few in leadership positions. Undoubtedly, the Plan had several drawbacks, which consisted, for example, of the fact that some types of work are heavy and may not be able for female staff. Moreover, there were very few vacant positions, and staff turnover was at a low level; that is, attractive jobs that would not require special training and extensive work experience were not allocated as such to help women and minorities (Bilan et al., 2020). The subject of the dispute and the statement of claim was the vacancy of a traffic controller, which was initially offered to Johnson, but then, as part of the program, the place was given to Joyce.
The hiring commission chose Joyce for the job; although Johnson was a more qualified and experienced employee, he was still refused. He filed a petition which testified that he was denied promotion in the workplace based on gender. Nevertheless, all appeals to the court and petitions were rejected because the Agency’s original Plan was designed to reduce the imbalance in the workplace between the number of women and men employed. In addition, the Plan did not hinder the promotion of other employees. The program to promote the career growth of minorities and women does not violate any civil rights of other employees and is aimed not only at helping minorities and women but at eliminating discrimination.
Decision
As part of this case, the decision was made to promote Joyce, not Johnson. I believe that the court’s decision, as well as the decision to hire Joyce, was appropriate. Although it would be more correct from the very beginning not to allow anyone to be tested except those who fit the conditions of the Positive Change Plan, namely, to allow only women and minorities. During the court proceedings, it was revealed that Joyce was rightly promoted since the adopted and approved Plan was aimed precisely at giving certain positions to women. The decisions taken were recognized as valid and lawful, as well as not discriminating against employees concerning gender (Nigro et al., 2014). Indeed, the work should not be the same, but the required skills, efforts, and degree of responsibility should be identical. Two people have the right to occupy equivalent positions in accordance with the tasks they perform (Sifunda-Evelia, 2017). In the case of Johnson and Joyce, the management decided to promote Joyce because she fits the gender criterion, but Johnson’s promotion was not discriminated. The decision was made on the basis of the initial goal of promoting women and minorities since these groups of employees are often in the shadows, that is, discriminated against.
The employer has correctly drawn up the positive development plan itself. The problems of the imbalance of employees at the enterprise were identified, as well as specific actions for balancing employees were proposed. This Plan nevertheless caused concerns in higher-level enterprises, as it could lead to other employees being dissatisfied with the fact that only women are considered for several positions. Nevertheless, the employer made a possible mistake precisely because they thought only female staff was hiring for certain places that require specific skills and knowledge (Sifunda-Evelia, 2017). The company employed many male professionals with the necessary expertise and qualifications. The agency naturally looked for women with the qualifications required, but when considering a man and a woman for this position, it was not taken into account that a man may have higher skills and knowledge than a woman. In any case, women and men remained the priority applicants for promotion.
The preliminary decision was the court’s decision since Johnson filed a petition for violation of civil rights. The court rejected all claims because, within the framework of the established and accepted Plan, the employer acted correctly and did not violate the rights of his employees. The purpose of the Plan was to promote the work of minorities and women, which was carried out. The Plan also noted that it is necessary to balance the working staff in such a way that employees of races and ethnicities other than the majority, as well as women, are in all types of positions, including senior ones. The need is dictated by the fact that often men, due to their natural temperament and character, are more often promoted than women.
Solution
In this case, several solutions could be found, one of which could help to avoid conflict at the initial stage. For unknown reasons, all candidates were considered for this vacant position, although the goal was to select women or employees who make up certain ranks. The company should have immediately excluded other potential candidates and prevented them from passing various tests. In the case of Johnson and Joyce, Johnson performed better in testing, but Joyce was hired anyway. What Johnson’s reaction was is expected since he is unaware of the boundaries that correspond to the program, that is, the hiring of female staff. In addition, Johnson has proved himself more successful, and he has more significant experience and skills, but he still does not have the opportunity to get promoted. Premature informing employees that women are invited to promotion, based on a new positive development plan to establish a balance in the company, could help avoid trial and proceedings.
Another solution to this problem was to create special conditions for employees who deserved it. For successful and qualified employees, such as Johnson, it was necessary to develop any financial incentives or rewards (Bilan et al., 2020). In addition, he could be offered an alternative promotion, which would motivate him to further work and development, as well as which would help him avoid going to court and other potential problems. If there is no opportunity to raise wages, then it was worthwhile to inform employees correctly and in advance about the conditions of future work for the promotion of female and minority employees (Bilan et al., 2020). That is, it was necessary to tell in detail and answer all the questions about the vacancy to avoid misunderstandings among other employees.
There are many other ways to prevent any discrimination in the workplace. It is necessary to know the laws that will help to understand that a person has faced discrimination, as well as to find legal ways to solve this problem. It is necessary to create and introduce an anti-discrimination policy for employees in senior positions (Bilan et al., 2020). It will help other employees feel protected and not suffer from possible bullying. In addition, the management can conduct periodic training programs to eradicate the appearance of faithfulness and discriminatory attitudes in the team. These actions are not the only ones that can help in the fight against discrimination in the workplace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, discrimination is always a restriction of labor rights and freedoms or the granting of advantages in this regard to someone to the detriment of others. Infringement of rights is based on the attribution of a citizen to a particular group of people. Discrimination based on gender is the most common and is mainly used against women. In the case of Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987), the issue of discrimination on the basis of gender is considered. The main problem of the case is that the promotion offer was refused by a male employee of Johnson, and the place was given to a woman named Joyce. This situation angered Johnson, and he filed a petition for violation of his rights. Nevertheless, the company was able to defend its position as it adopted a Plan that was aimed at promoting female co-workers and members of minorities. I think creating a Plan was an excellent decision, as was hiring Joyce. The court’s decision was also correct, and this is because it was initially planned to promote a female applicant.
This situation has been repeatedly considered and discussed in court. Nevertheless, the decision was not made in favor of Johnson since, in accordance with the proposed program, it is women who should go for promotion. There was no discrimination in this case since it is women and minorities who are often harassed in matters of holding leadership positions, and in this regard, the Plan was created. Women are mainly subjected to gender discrimination, which has led to the need to promote female employees. The prohibition of discrimination in the sphere of work is designed to provide everyone with equal opportunities to exercise their labor rights. However, in this case, the fact of bias was not established.
The solution to this issue was found only through appeals to the court. Although there are many different solutions that could help avoid judicial intervention and dispel problems in the company. Such decisions include the regulation of gender policy in the company by senior management. In addition, if the managers had initially explained the terms of the Plan to employees in an accessible and understandable way, it would probably have been possible to avoid misunderstandings. Furthermore, another solution would be to exclude from the competition the place of applicants who do not fit the conditions of the promotion. In the case of Johnson and Joyce, Johnson passed the tests more successfully than Joyce, but being unaware of the requirements of the upgrade, Johnson was outraged that Joyce received the advancement.
Discrimination has no place not only in the modern world but also in the workplace. It is imperative that the top management takes care that there is no discrimination among employees and also controls their decisions and actions in the field of exclusion of bias. An employer may prefer one employee and not perceive the other as a professional. But it is one thing when it is related to business qualities, and quite another if an employee is harassed for their watered race.
References
Bilan, Y., Mishchuk, H., Samolyuk, N., & Mishchuk, V. (2020). Gender discrimination and its links with compensations and benefits practices in enterprises. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 8(3), 189-204.
Johnson v. Transportation Agency (1987).
Nigro, L., Nigro, F., and Kellough, J. (2014). The new public personnel administration. 7th Edition. Cengage.
Sifunda-Evelia, M. (2017). Human resource management practices: A biblical perspective. Partridge.