Discrimination__an_Epidemic_of_the_Past,_Present,_and_Future

Discrimination: An Epidemic of the Past, Present, and Future The presence of laws is imperative for a society to succeed; any civilization must have a set of rules that govern and regulate all citizens, ensuring that every citizen is treated equally. These laws must be applied to every citizen indiscriminately and fairly, with each individual required to follow these laws the same as any other citizen. Our nation was founded on the basis of equality, yet human nature can tend to lean towards discrimination and bias against other individuals who are different. The United States can be considered to be a melting pot of people from (or ancestors hailing from) different countries and cultures, yet these citizens are Americans just as much as the next person. Anti-discriminatory laws have been ratified to ensure that the rights of these citizens are protected and that these Americans have equal opportunity to find employment. Discrimination is most evident when conducted against minorities, yet there are some areas like Hawaii where the difference between majority and minority may not be so evident; according to the U.S. Census Bureau website, white people, who account for 80.1% of the population of the United States in 2006, accounted for a mere 28.6% in Hawaii. On the other hand, citizens of Asian ancestry accounted for 40.1% of Hawaii’s population as opposed to just 4.4% on a national scale. Looking at numbers alone may suggest that Hawaii would be free of discrimination based on the diversity of its population, yet like anywhere else in the world, Hawaii is not free of its share of bias. This report will introduce discrimination laws and a real case in which discrimination has occurred in an unsuspecting place. History and Evolution of Employment Laws Diversity is what defines the United States, yet with this diversity comes the probability of discrimination. As early as the 1960s, Congress has enacted sets of laws that “the major forms of employee discrimination,” and has since been interpreted widely in both federal and state courts (Cheeseman, 2007). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), whose members are appointed by the President of the United States, is a federal commission responsible for ensuring that equal opportunity laws are enforced, able to intervene between employees and employers and also given the strength to instigate law suits to protect employment laws when necessary. One of the pioneers in terms of labor laws is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from denying employment to an individual on “the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (1997). In essence, Title VII maintained that refusing to employ minorities was now illegal by federal law, and both disparate-treatment discrimination, or the discrimination against individuals, and disparate-impact discrimination, or the discrimination against a class of people, were now prohibited (Cheeseman, 2007). Since the passing of Title VII and the Civil Rights Acts, other anti-discriminatory laws have been passed, including the Pregnancy Act of 1978, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Cheeseman, 2007). The enforcement of these additional acts, which can be considered to complement the original Title VII legislation, broadens the opportunities of individuals who are more susceptible to discrimination by eliminating any weaknesses that these people may have from the employment factor. Discrimination Law in Action In May of 2008, the Lawyers and Settlements.com website reported that seven crew members from the cruise ship Pride of Aloha filed a discrimination lawsuit via the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that their employment was wrongfully terminated as a result of their Middle Eastern ancestry (2008). NCL America Inc. denied the allegations yet both sides reached a settle agreement resulting in NCL agreeing to pay a total of $485,000 to resolve the suit. A case such as this is evidence that Title VII is a vital part of our society today. After the tragic events of September 11, 201 and the ongoing terrorist acts in the Middle East, individuals of Middle Eastern descent are now more prone to be unfairly discriminated against, even if these citizens were born and raised in the United States. These individuals may not have any ties with the Middle East aside from the fact that their ancestors were from that region yet are faced with the ongoing threat of losing employment as a result of their descent. The seven workers mentioned above received compensation for wrongdoing because they were employees of the company, yet if the situation was altered and the terms of their employment were different, the outcome of the settlement would have also been different. For example, if the seven workers were determined to be independent contractors simply providing a service for NCL, the workers may not have been covered by anti-discriminatory laws. The Employee Rights Kit website (2007) introduces the fact that “if it is determined that the company does not have the right to supervise the person's time, performance, working conditions and other related activities, there is legally no employment relationship.” In other words, because no legal relationship between the employer and independent contractor has been established, the contractor would not have protection under anti-discriminatory laws unless, depending on the conditions, a court of law decides differently. Likewise, union laborers are also treated differently in terms of anti-discriminatory laws. According to the Employee Rights Kit website (2007), labor union members accept employment that is in compliance with the union contract, and labor unions act as negotiators for its members. Essentially, labor unions act as a go-between the employer and union member, with the union member given the freedom of rejecting the terms of employment at will. Employers are only able to terminate the member’s employment only if a reason to do so is proven to be just, and union members have the freedom to challenge the reasons for termination at will. If the crew members of the Pride of Aloha were members of a union, NCL would probably not have proceeded to terminate the crew members’ employment because of a lack of reason to do so. The organization would not have been able to provide a reasonable explanation for its actions, meaning that this in itself would be a violation of the union contract. Conclusion Discrimination is a sensitive subject that is applicable to every citizen. Despite the measures taken to eliminate discrimination and bias, both are unfortunately part of human nature. The current laws that exist now are able to decrease the different types of discrimination that may arise, yet as time goes on, new forms of discrimination will undoubtedly arise. Discrimination is a problem that will always exist, and the nation must be prepared to challenge the presence of this immoral mannerism throughout all time. References Cheeseman, H.R. (2007) The legal environment of business and online commerce (5th. Ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Retrieved on October 26, 2008 from the University of Phoenix Student Resource website: https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp Hawaii (2008). Retrieved on October 25, 2008 from the U.S. Census Bureau website: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/15000.html Kind of employees (2007). Retrieved on October 26, 2008 from the Employee Rights Kit website: http://www.mypersonnelfile.com/te_kind.php Middle Eastern Discrimination (2008). Retrieved on October 25, 2008 from the Lawyers and Settlements.com website: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/11837/ncl-america-middle-eastern-discrimination.html Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1997). Retrieved on October 25, 2008 from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html