In the US, the 1963 Equal Pay Act ended the conduct of giving men a higher pay than women for similar jobs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 took the protection a notch higher by offering similar defense to various minority groups (Cheeseman 650). Today, in an attempt to champion for employee rights, there is a need for a law that protects employees from being fired based on factors such as physical disability, genetic information discrimination, retaliation, or physical attractiveness.
Indeed, according to Cheeseman, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeks to ensure that no discrimination takes place for any employee or even a job applicant on the basis of these factors (648). All people are entitled to a decent living and access to a consistent source of livelihood. Apart from engaging in entrepreneurial activities, employment is a leading source of livelihood for many Americans.
Therefore, putting employee job security at the mercy of employers denies victims such a fundamental basic right. Mitigating discrimination also guarantees the provision of equal opportunities for all people. The US recognizes the need for equality of all human beings, irrespective of their individual disabilities, looks, race, gender, age, or ethnicity. Therefore, attempts to discriminate employees by firing them, not because they are unable to deliver on their job mandates, but based on the context of their disability, genetic information discrimination, retaliation, or physical attractiveness breaches this fundamental philosophy upon which collective development of the US is anchored (Cheeseman 649).
Some organizations may have prejudiced views and wrong perceptions about people’s capabilities. Therefore, it is necessary to have law that prohibits employee discrimination when firing them. What are organizations interested in when firing? Do they seek to do away with unproductive and inefficient employees or adhering to outdated policies and perceptions that which lack any evidence-based scholarly support?
For example, color is merely skin pigmentation, but does not contribute to the creativity or innovativeness of an employee. Why then should employers fire an employee based on color and gender or any other diversity trait such as genetic information? Where organizations pursue such policies, they need to be stopped through a law that prohibits any firing that is based on such diversity traits.
Organizations have the freedom to employ people who they deem fit for executing specific job requirements. Nevertheless, recruitment and hiring should be based on merit. Judicial precedence, for instance, the case of Neessen v. Arona Corp. underlines the need for complying with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which protects the rights of expectant women (Cheeseman 653). This situation raises the issue of whether employers need not to employ people who fit best in the business.
The response to the above issue is that employers should select people who qualify for any available position. However, the selection criteria should not be based on discriminatory practices. Hiring should be based on individual capability and the capacity to meet the required skills and experience. From the context of this criterion, organizations should realize that color, race, genetic information, disability, or gender among other aspects that differentiate people do not influence an employee’s skills or experience.
Discriminating people based on physical disability, genetic background, retaliation, or physical charisma does not only disadvantage an organization by minimizing the range of talent potential for building competitive advantage but also hinders the development and nurturing of future talents. Google Company demonstrates well the values of employing diverse employees after selecting them based on their abilities, irrespective of their physical disability, gender, genetic background, race, or color.
Works Cited
Cheeseman, Henry. Contemporary Business Law, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Education. Print.