Research Paper on Age Discrimination in Employment

How EEOC Determines Issues Based On Protected Classes and Adverse Impact?

Adverse impact refers to a different rate of choosing employment decisions that has an adverse effect on a protected group (Brink & Crenshaw, n.d.). It is sufficient evidence of discriminative practices in employment that affects the protected group of individuals. Based on Title VII of Civil Rights Act, employees are protected based on their ethnic background, colour, religious background, sex, and country of origin. Additionally, employees are protected from discriminatory practices related to age and disabilities based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act respectively (Brink & Crenshaw, n.d.).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Discrimination against employees during employment attracts different types and amounts of charges based on the type of employment discrimination meted to an employee. According to Title VII Discrimination Act, discrimination based on colour attract discrimination charges of USD 30,510 and monetary benefits for charging parties of USD 67,700,000. On the other hand, religious discrimination during attract discrimination charges against USD 2,880 and monetary benefits for charging parties of USD 6,400,000. Further, sex discrimination during employee recruitment attracts discrimination charges of USD 24,826 and monetary benefits for charging parties of USD 135,400,000. Moreover, discrimination related to country of origin attract discrimination charges of USD 9,396 and monetary benefits for charging parties of USD 22,800,000 (Brink & Crenshaw, n.d.).

Unethical Practices an Organisation Might Conduct During the Recruiting Process

Ethics are critical during the recruitment of employees. Even though most organisations have laws that are important in protecting prospective employees during the recruitment process. These laws are also meant to enhance professionalism and adherence to ethical standards during the hiring of employees. Despite the presence of these legal guidelines, human resource professionals often encounter dilemmas that go beyond these ethical principles. These dilemmas include misleading job adverts, misrepresentation of the qualifications for a specific post, discriminating against a qualified candidate, and failure to review candidates on the grounds of merits (Society for Human Resource Management, 2012).

In order to avoid such dilemmas, the human resource professional as are expected to uphold utmost honesty, consistency, and objectiveness when hiring employees. This can be achieved through avoiding placement of advertisements for non-existent jobs or for positions that are different from what an organisation intends to fill. Additionally, it is important for the recruitment team to solely look at the candidate's qualification when hiring and avoid hiring employees based on extraneous factors, such as gender, ethnicity, and political affiliations. Moreover, during the interview process, those tasked with hiring employees should not misrepresent a job to a candidate. The team should honestly explain to the candidate the job's working conditions and the status of the organisation (current and expected) if they are likely to have an impact on the candidate's future employability in the organisation (Society for Human Resource Management, 2012).

The recruitment of employees from competitors, customers, and suppliers should also be carried out transparently. For instance, the recruitment team should ensure that the candidate is aware of the risks involved in working for a competitor. For example, some candidates may be legally bound not to work with a competitor (Society for Human Resource Management, 2012).

Employee Recruitment Lawsuit

The most recent employee lawsuit has been made against Price Water Coopers (PwC). According to the plaintiffs, college students over the age of 40, PwC hired a disproportionally large number of young employees in its tax and assurance units, thus hurting the older workers (Lepore, 2018). According to the plaintiffs, PwC's hiring of the younger workers is a discrimination based on age. They argue that PwC violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because of disproportionally hiring the youth. Unlike the youth who are given full-time jobs, the older workers were given more part-time and seasonal jobs. Compared to the younger who got 97% of the jobs, 3% of the individuals aged 40 and above were employed by PwC in its latest college recruitment (Lepore, 2018).

But PwC's attorney disagrees that the company's recruitment procedure discriminates against the older workers. The company explains that its recruitment is merit-based and that older workers are, the older workers were given more part-time and seasonal jobs. Statistical analysis presented to the court by PwC shows that 18% of the workers were aged 40and below while 3% were above the age of 40 (Lepore, 2018).. The higher number of the younger workers may be linked to their flexibility and tech savvy. On the other hand, older adults are less likely to be employed due to their lower levels of skills in the computer (Lepore, 2018).

I believe that the decision of PwC to younger workers than older adults does not violate ADEA; therefore it did not discriminate on the age like it is pointed out by the older workers. Currently, most companies are moving towards employment of tech-savvy staff. The tech-savvy population is largely comprised of the youth. Therefore, the recruitment of youthful employees is non-discriminatory.

References

Brink, K., & Crenshaw, J. (n.d.). Adverse Impact: What is it? How do you calculate it?

Lepore, M. (2018). Lawsuit alleges company's college campus recruiting is ageist.
Society for Human Resource Management (2012). Recruiting: Ethics: What are some common ethical dilemmas that HR professionals face during the recruiting process? How should we handle them?