Racial Harassment and Discrimination Crimes
Blacks Law Dictionary defines racial harassment as a form of discrimination based on ones race, ethnicity, color, and citizenship (Garner, 2001). Racial harassment occurs verbally when an employee is subjected to unwelcome remarks, crude jokes, and teasing in reference to ones ethnicity. The physical form of racial harassment can take place when there is unwelcome touching, assault, or even rape. A non-verbal form exists when gestures, glares, facial expressions, or stalking take place. Visual displays are forms of racial harassment when seen on publically in the workplace in posters, pictures, screensavers, nooses, swastikas, and other intimidating forms of visual communication (EEOC, 2009). When this conduct becomes intimidating and bothersome, it can have a direct effect on ones job performance. At this juncture, it is safe to assume that racial harassment has taken place.
Discrimination is defined as favoritism based on race, sex, color, sexual orientation, creed, or religion (Garner, 2001). When one is treated differently due to their color or gender, then they have been discriminated against. This differential treatment can transpire during a hiring process which can prevent a qualified individual from gaining respectable employment based on a discriminatory standard. This practice also takes place when an employee is being considered for a raise, promotion, or when a company is downsizing and having to terminate some employees. It is up to the employee to determine if he or she feels that they have been a victim of discrimination.
The laws prohibiting this type of conduct in the workplace are very specific. The Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law designed to prohibit discrimination of any employee based on race, color, religion, and ethnicity (EEOC, 2009). Under this proviso, an employee can sue an employer for an act of discrimination. Other laws stand to protect employees from various forms of discrimination in the workplace according to the EEOC. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects employees from wage discrimination based on gender. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects workers over the age of forty. Title I and Title V protect Americans with Disabilities in the workplace. Section 501 and 505 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects individual workers with disabilities who are employed with the federal government. Finally, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 provides that employees who have been discriminated against are entitled to monetary damages.
Racial harassment can be explained as it happened in the case of Bowen v. Missouri Department of Social Services, 8th Circuit (US Court of Appeals, 2002). This legal proceeding is a Title VII lawsuit. Bowen is a Caucasian caseworker for the Missouri Department of Social Services (MDSS). Bowen alleged that her supervisor, Lee, had used racial epithets against her. Lee, an African American, had been overheard referring to Bowen as a white bitch and a menopausal white bitch on several occasions (US Court of Appeals, 2002). Bowen also alleges that Lee crushed a pound cake that she had brought to work to share with her co-workers.
Lastly, Bowen alleges that Lee charged her while threatening to shoot her in the back. Bowen filed the necessary complaints with her supervisors to no avail. She contacted the local police department when she began fearing for her life at work. After conferring with her union steward and the EEOC, Bowen filed a complaint with the local magistrates office. The magistrate stated that there was not enough evidence to substantiate any form of racial harassment. Fearing for her life, Bowen resigned from her place of employment. The MDSS won in the lower court via summary judgment, but Bowen appealed. On December 2, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of Bowen citing that she had been forced to endure a hostile work environment.
An example of discrimination can be seen in the case of Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S., 616. The United States Supreme Court heard the matter in 1987 and ruled on behalf of Johnson citing that a Title VII EEOC violation had occurred. Johnson claimed that he had been passed over for a promotion based on his gender (Landy, 2005). He had applied to be promoted to the position of dispatcher, but the position was given to a female who had never applied for the position. Typically, in his place of employment, women were always dispatchers. The court cited a previous ruling in 1993 from the case of Harris v. Forklift Systems, 114 S. Ct, 367, 63 stating that harassment is evident if the employee subjectively perceives a hostile work environment as a result of gender based conduct (EEOC, 2009).
There are many different forms of harassment and discrimination that exist in the workplace. In order to determine what conduct constitutes either of these violations one must know and understand what is not permissible. An employer does not have the right to make racial slurs towards an employee, make jokes in relation to ones race or ethnicity, making obscene gestures, use offensive language, or show indecent pictures. The workplace should serve as a place to earn a living. Employees should not have to endure threats, ridicule, embarrassment, humiliation, or intimidation because of someone elses ignorance.
These laws can help employees, but they can also hurt the employer in the long run. Employees can rest assure in knowing that when they go to work, there are provisions in place to make sure that they are safe and free from harassment. This freedom allows for a better work performance and a higher quality in production. It also stands to improve company morale. Employers can suffer from these laws. If an employer is in good business standing within the community and an allegation of racial harassment or discrimination is made public, it stands to tarnish the image and possibly ruin the reputation of the business. The employer could also be obligated to endure extreme costs as litigation would require representation through private counsel. Overall, the laws are good, but employees and employers should be encouraged to work together to avoid any mishaps or violations of the enforceable laws.
The only provision that could improve these laws would be to add an amendment requiring that another program be attempted before filing an official claim for harassment or discrimination. Many companies have already enacted alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs in order to handle conflict resolution (Landy, 2005). This stipulation would be less costly to the employer and would give the employer the chance to correct the problem before it got out of hand. Under this rider, the employer would also be afforded the opportunity to take whatever disciplinary measures were necessary against the offending employee or employees. These terms should be made available to all employees upon being hired. This would ensure that everyone is on the same page.
Each person is guaranteed the right to pursue and enjoy life and liberty. Part of this quest is being able to make a decent and respectable living. Sometimes life is not fair and people encounter unpleasant situations beyond their control, especially in the workplace. The United States Supreme Court and the EEOC have come together to formulate a specific set of rules and laws that are designed to protect individuals from undue treatment. This intolerable treatment can come from fellow co-workers or supervisors. No one should have to put up with racial harassment or discrimination in the workplace or anywhere for that matter. Nonetheless, it is against the law and prosecutable by law in each state.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment