Unjust Prejudices at Work: A Violation of Human Rights - Research Paper

Introduction

All forms of prejudices at work that are founded on ethnicity or country of origin disregards the elementary right of human beings and are subject to strict scrutiny, which is the greatest level of protection in the United States law system. A person does not select where to be born or which race to be born from. Although nationality can be changed from generation to generation of the family, an individual cannot change or select his/her nation of origin. A worker should never receive unjust treatment due to coming from a country of origin that is dissimilar from many of the company's employees. Likewise, there is no possibility of a person deciding or choosing to be born of the ethnicity they desire. Ethnicity is a way of distinguishing people based on their physical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, or body and facial features. Regrettably, in the American community, the meaning of race goes far deeper than its mere definition (Daniels & Pereira, 2017). Because of the philosophical influence referred to as whiteness, which was founded on the social domination of the whites over other races, Americans have been made to think that ethnicity is the one making the whites stand out from the people of color. It is due to this thought that race is used to cause discrimination (Jameel & Yerardi, 2019). Although they might influence particular characteristics of people, ethnicity and country of origin cannot mirror either their exact individuality or work performance, and therefore should never be the reason for treating others differently from the rest (Levinson, 2017). According to the Equal Protection Clause, each person legally staying and working in the U.S has a right for equal treatment at work, as well as a right for equal work opportunities, and hence any racial or country of origin discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny.

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

Save 25%

The elementary interest of an employee is broken by an unfair and unjust workplace treatment and is subject to strict scrutiny. An employee's workplace discrimination has a direct influence on his/her family's living arrangements based on the salary s/he gets. Indubitably, the amount of salary that one gets greatly influences the quality of life s/he lives. Apart from rent and other essential personal things, a person has to pay for health insurance, car insurance, and many other payments on a monthly basis. Low salaries and wages, therefore, make persons live a desperate life since they are not able to cater to all their needs including good health (Yoshino, 2011). Some people are therefore forced to work more hours to supplement their salaries and wages so that they can pay all their bills, and this may affect their health. Based on information collected by researchers from University College London regarding working hours and health status of more than 600,000 employees, employees who worked above 55 hours per week had a 13% higher risk of a heart attack, and a 33% risk of suffering stroke (Boseley, 2015). Occasionally, the employees are unable to service their rent and are forced to move to other apartments they can afford. This makes them transfer their children from schools to new ones, which affect the children's education and their safety in the area with cheaper houses. Paying an employee less salary compared to those they have the same work performance with is considered discrimination and is punishable by the Equal Protection Clause under strict scrutiny.

Prejudice at work that is based on gender breaks the Equal Protection Clause and is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Gender is the next discriminatory factor in the workplace after ethnicity and nationality. The position of women in the society has always been thin throughout the historical account of the U.S. Women have always been subjected to many forms of abuse at work including job discrimination. Currently, the plight of women in American society has substantially improved following many years of struggles by iconic feminists and politicians. However, the notion that men are always superior to women is still in existence (Kelso, 2001). The conception is even more conspicuous when we look at the rights of women and men in a company, the woman's rights are more likely to be overlooked. Generally, looking at corporeal and biological factors, a woman is weaker than a man and is likely to be the subject of discrimination at work. A woman is less masculine than a man, and therefore men are seen to be stronger. Even though women have the capability to perform like men, they are still discriminated based on other factors such as pregnancy periods and other sex stereotypes. The most commonly applied form of discrimination is reducing the working hours and pay for women while they are pregnant. Other companies go as far as firing women during the pregnancy period or when they report after delivery. To add to gender discrimination, the American community is also fighting discrimination due to belonging to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) communities (Barry et al., 2016). People are being prejudiced due to their sexual orientation, which has called for the attention of the stakeholders. The Equal Protection Clause safeguards equal treatment of everyone without isolation based on gender and sex. Anyone found violating this clause is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

Discrimination in a Workplace Prejudices the Due Process Clause

Dismissing or abruptly contract termination for workers is said to be discriminating against them and thus a violation of the Procedure Process Clause. It is unjust as an employer to suddenly fire your employee without a reason or explanation. The Procedure Process Clause articulates that, under whatever situation, the employee possesses a right to be notified or heard before finally reaching a decision to fire him/her. That is to say, workers have a right to be notified through a notice of why they are being dismissed. Additionally, employees as well have a right to explain themselves for breaching their work ethics or protocols and have an opportunity to fix their mistakes. Everybody needs a source of income for a living (Nachbar, 2016). Dismissing someone abruptly distorts the stability of their life, and therefore they need to be notified in advance to plan how they will survive after the firing. Even though the fired person may get another job immediately, abrupt firing without an explanation affects their next job. Because of such reasons, workers deserve to be notified before dismissal so they can prepare themselves for the aftermath.

Unfair treatment of workers at the place of work breaks the Substantive Process Clause. Discrimination of an employee by a dismissal can negatively influence the elementary interest of their family's living arraignment and is subject to strict scrutiny. The Substantive Due Process is about whether the government's deprivation of an individual's life, freedom or property is justified by a significant reason (King et al., 2013). That is to say that the Substantive Due Process can be merely described as whether it is a good purpose for deprivation. It is manifestly that employers have a right to dismiss or fire employees; nonetheless, this right is only practicable when there is enough evidence that the employee deserves to be dismissed or has done many costly mistakes (Holoszyc-Pimentel, 2015). It is evident that discriminating employees and dismissing them affect the quality of life they live. Therefore, unfair laying off of employees is illegal under the Procedure Process Clause and is subject to strict scrutiny.

Discrimination in a Workplace Violates Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an average law that safeguards the rights of workers from all types of discrimination founded on particular characteristics like race, country of origin, gender, or religion. Title VII is implemented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and normally used to safeguard workers and job applicants. The law applies to private-sector employers with more than 15 employees, and public sector employers at the federal, nation, and local level. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents employers from making decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about capabilities, characters, or the personal performance that is linked to any safeguarded characteristics (AAUW, 2020). For example, it is illegal for a policy of any company to prevent people from a certain race from being promoted to managerial positions just because of stereotypes that the particular race does not produce good managers.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from being treated differently just because they belong to a different faith from others or relate to people with different appearances or faith. Provisions in company policies that discriminate against people due to any of their safeguarded characteristics violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII protects all employees regardless of their level of employment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination of any kind based on gender, sexual orientation, and religion unless the character has an undue effect on the employer (Fuhs, 2019). Title VII also requires that all employees are treated equally at the workplace and are subjected to equal opportunities without favoring others.

References

AAUW. (2020). Know Your Rights: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/title-vii/

Boseley, S. (2015). Health & wellbeing; Working longer hours increases stroke risk, major study finds. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/20/working-longer-hours-increases-stroke-risk

Barry, K. M., Farrell, B., Levi, J. L., & Vanguri, N. (2016). A bare desire to harm: transgender people and the equal protection clause. BCL Rev., 57, 507.

Daniels, G. B., & Pereira, R. (2017). Equal Protection as a Vehicle for Equal Access and Opportunity: Constance Baker Motley and the Fourteenth Amendment in Education Cases. Colum. L. Rev., 117, 1779.

Fuhs, B. (2019). 11 types of workplace discrimination employers should be aware of.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rocketlawyer.com/blog/11-types-of-workplace-discrimination-employers-should-be-aware-of-925296/amp

Holoszyc-Pimentel, R. (2015). Reconciling rational basis review: when does rational basis bite. NYUL Rev., 90, 2070

Jameel, M. & Yerardi, J. (2019). Workplace discrimination is illegal. But our data shows it's still a huge problem. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/28/18241973/workplace-discrimination-cpi-investigation-eeoc.

Kelso, R. R. (2001). Standards of Review Under the Equal Protection Clause and Related Constitutional Doctrines Protecting Individual Rights: The Base Plus Six Model and Modern Supreme Court Practice. U. Pa. J. Const. L., 4, 225.

King, E. B., Avery, D. R., & Sackett, P. (2013). Three perspectives of employment discrimination 50 years after the Civil Rights Act-a promise fulfilled?. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(4), 375-382.

Levinson, S. (2017). Why Strauder v. West Virginia is the Most Important Single Source of Insight on the Tensions Contained Within the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Louis ULJ, 62, 603.

Nachbar, T. B. (2016). VOLUME 102 NOVEMBER 2016 NUMBER 7. Virginia Law Review, 102, 1627.

Yoshino, K. (2011). The new equal protection. Harvard Law Review, 124(3), 747-803.