Federal Laws that Protect Employees

1 Federal Laws that Protect Employees In human resource management, there are several laws that define how an employer should treat employees and, therefore, impact staffing practices. Human resource professionals need to manage employees with understanding and adherence to the laws and regulations that pertain to the HR practice. Organizations that violate these federal laws expose themselves to consequences such as a damaged reputation and lawsuits. Therefore, HR professionals should be familiar with labor-related legal matters to help companies comply with the law and protect workers' rights. This paper explores two federal laws enacted to ensure that employees' rights to health, safety, and equality were protected. These are; the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11246 and the Sexual Harassment Amendment (1980).

Executive Order 11246 Signed and passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24th 1965, Executive Order 11246 is one of the most groundbreaking rules in the treatment of US government contractors. It states that federal contractors who transact with the government should not discriminate against employees on the basis of their nationality, race, color, religion, or gender (Guerin, & DelPo, 2011).

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2 The Order also mandates contractors to take affirmative action in their recruitment practices. The Order is applicable to all contractors who transact with the government, their subcontractors and vendors. Under the Order, businesses were required to provide documentation of their HR practices on request. The Executive Order was passed because discriminatory practices were common in the workplace. There was an under-representation of minorities and women. Executive Order 11246 is similar to the Civil Rights Act; however, it contains the additional requirement that federal contractors whose contracts exceed $50,000 and have more than 50 employees should have an Affirmative Action Plan that states how it handles the selection, hiring and training of employees in the protected classes.

The major elements of Executive Order 11246 are that it ensures that minorities have equal rights in the workplace through affirmative action. Organizations and businesses that fall in this category must assign an official to ensure that the Order is implemented as specified by the law. Another important feature of Executive Order 11246 is that organizations are required to file Compliance Reports proving that they follow the Order prior to being awarded a contract (Seiner, 2019). There are also punishments for organizations that fail to comply with the Order.

These include publishing their names, terminating their contracts, and blacklisting them from entering into future contracts with government agencies. Therefore, this Order is crucial because it provides opportunities to the classes of people who are vulnerable to discrimination.

To a large extent, Executive Order 11246 has effectively protected employees from the violation of their rights. This is evidenced by the fact that, since its enforcement, there have been fewer cases of discrimination by government contractors. The executive Order is forwardlooking because it provides an allowance for revisions to keep up with modern workplace issues.

It looks for avenues for potential discrimination and seals them. I feel that Executive Order

3 11246 has been effective in reducing cases of discrimination. It is a proactive Executive Order, and was not merely put in place to clean up wrongdoings. Its Affirmative Action Plan makes it a proactive rather than a reactive measure of curbing workplace discrimination. The laws themselves are well-written and comprehensive. It is the responsibility of the officials tasked with implementing them to ensure organizational compliance.

Lawsuit On July 17th 2014, the Justice Department announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Entergy Corporation for violating Section 503 of Executive Order 11246. Entergy Corporation was alleged to have violated these laws due to its failure to provide proof of affirmative action programs to the OFCCP (Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs). The lawsuit was occasioned by the defendant’s failure to provide proof that it was compliant with Executive Order 11246 and its refusal to allows OFCCP to perform an audit. The Department of Labor had requested Entergy Corporation to furnish proof of compliance since May 2012, and after their apparent refusal to follow these instructions, the Department of Labor forwarded the matter to the Department of Justice (Shilling, 2019).

Entergy Corporation responded to the lawsuit by providing the specified documents. The Department of Labor, therefore, won the case. Entergy Corporation has since been reinstated as a government contractor.

The Sexual Harassment Amendment (1980) Despite being explicitly termed as illegal, sexual harassment is still common. Sexual harassment in the workplace includes all acts of unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and inappropriate verbal or physical sexual conduct. Sexual harassment may occur in a

4 variety of ways, and the harasser can be male or female. The harasser can also be of the same sex as the victim.

On September 23, 1980, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) adopted the amended version of the Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex1 to reaffirm that sexual harassment was a gross violation of employees' rights.The amendment also defined the acts that constitute sexual harassment. The federal court passed the law due to a steep increase in the number of sexual harassment cases. Prior to this amendment, there was no clear definition of what sexual harassment was. Therefore, it was difficult for employees to ascertain whether they had, indeed, been harassed. The absence of clear guidelines on the conduct that constituted sexual harassment also created a work environment where employers could easily take advantage of employees.

Components of the Law The law was enacted to provide a clearer definition on sexual harassment. This was crucial because it ensured that employers, coworkers and supervisors could be held liable for acts of sexual misconduct in the workplace. The law states that explicit or implicit requests for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances and physical or verbal sexual conduct can be deemed as sexual harassment. Under this law, three circumstances were outlined where an individual or organization could be held liable for sexual harassment; firstly, when sexual favors were a term or condition of employment or career advancement (Shilling, 2019). Secondly, it was considered sexual harassment when submitting to or rejecting sexual advances affected an individual’s career opportunities within the organization.

Thirdly, sexual harassment is also defined as sexual (mis)conduct that creates an offensive, threatening or hostile working environment. The law stated that the employer was

5 responsible for any acts of sexual harassment within the organization, and as such, had the responsibility of proactively preventing the occurrence of sexual harassment. The employer could however refute liability by proving that they took appropriate measures at the right time to stop the harassment.

The 1980 Amendment also stated that in determining sexual harassment cases, EEOC had a responsibility to examine the entire history of the matter and its history. The determination of the legality was to be made based on facts and on a case by case basis.

Observations of the Law The effectiveness of this law cannot be substantiated since there has been a dramatic increase in the number of workplace sexual harassment cases. Sexual harassment in the workplace has become even more rampant, and it is common for the perpetrators to escape unscathed due to the financial and social consequences of reporting these cases. The law also contains loopholes that allow sexual harassment. For instance, freelance workers, entrepreneurs, independent contractors, agricultural workers and domestic workers are exposed to sexual harassment because they are not covered by this law.

Sexual harassment continues to rise despite there being laws against it because it is more than a legal issue, it is also a gender issue. In the workplace, women are the more common target of sexual harassment than men due to gender power dynamics. They are socialized to accept that at one point or another, they are likely to be sexually harassed and they should therefore accept it. Men also hold more powerful positions in the organizational hierarchy, therefore, reporting sexual harassment cases might have a long-lasting negative impact on one’s career. Sexual harassment laws have to a large extent been ineffective; I believe that sexual harassment can only reduce when societal gender disparities are addressed and the power dynamics neutralized.

6 Is the Law Working?

The law does not work effectively in cases of sexual harassment because of the systematic nature of the practice. There is no professional sector that is unaffected by sexual harassment; from law to politics to education (O'Brien, 2018). Therefore, because of the widespread nature of the vice, and the fact that it is mostly advanced by people who hold positions of power, the victims may tolerate it or fail to respond adequately. For the law to be effective it should also address issues such as; where and how to report cases of sexual harassment without the likelihood of losing one’s job. The law should also go hand in hand with pushing for more employment opportunities, and equality. The law cannot work because of the negative consequences that reporting may have on the financial, social and professional development of the victims of sexual harassment.

Lawsuit The case of Leopold v. Baccarat, Inc. clearly demonstrates the inefficiencies of the Sexual Harassment Amendment (1980). In 1994, Andree Leopold (Leopold) sued her employer, Baccarat Inc. for violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Sexual Harassment Amendment of 1980. Leopold alleged that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment by threatening to fire the company’s saleswomen and replacing them with younger, sexy women (Williams, & Dellinger, 2010). Leopold lost the case because she could not provide evidence that her employer (Baccarat) would have failed to address the complaint adequately and that negative action would have been taken against her. The court dismissed the case despite sufficient evidence of sexual harassment within the organization.

Conclusion

7 Despite the presence of workplace anti-discriminatory laws, the push for equality and fairness is far from over because of the systematic nature of these practices. Workplace discrimination can best be addressed by dealing with the origins of the issues. For workplace discrimination to end, the deeply pervasive systematic injustices against vulnerable groups such as minorities and women must also be comprehensively addressed.

8 References Guerin, L. & DelPo, A. (2011). The Essential Guide to Federal Employment Laws. Nolo O'Brien, R. (2018). Telling Stories Out of Court: Narratives about Women and Workplace Discrimination. Cornell University Press Seiner, J. A. (2019). Employment Discrimination: Procedure, Principles, and Practice. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Shilling. (2019). Complete Guide to Human Resources and the Law, 2019 Edition. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Williams, C. & Dellinger, K. (2010). Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace Research in the Sociology of Work. Emerald Publishing Group.