EEOC Adverse Impact Ratio Analysis in the hiring, promotion and separation process using Gender and Ethnicity

EEOC on Hiring, Promotion and Separation Process using Gender and Ethnicity
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
EEOC on Hiring, Promotion and Separation Process using Gender and Ethnicity
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a U. S agency bestowed with the responsibility of enforcing federal regulations that govern and protects American job seekers or employees against discrimination and operation in the workplace. Essentially, EEOC peruses complaints raised by job applicants and employees about hiring, firing, and separation on the basis of color, age, origin, gender, ethnicity, race, pregnancy, sexual orientation and aspect of disability. In addition, EOCC partners with these federal agencies to further the goal of equality. The diversity of the U.S workforce has been in the spotlight in the past years following the rampant discrimination on the basis of gender and ethnicity, which have been seen some improvement recently. Women have always been on the receiving end when it comes to matters of gender discrimination since it comes in many different forms for women working today. According to the Women Bureau (WB), about four in ten working women in the U.S, translating to 42% have faced discrimination in the workplace. Women are discriminated by earning a lesser salary, sexually harassed, and underrated and inequitably supported compared their male counterparts. The issue of ethnicity discrimination has also been very prevalent in the U.S where many employees have discriminated origin, which is judged by their place of birth, accent, and dressing code. Therefore, the paper seeks to examine how the impact of EEOC adverse impact ratio analysis in the hiring, promotion and separation process using gender and ethnicity.
In the context of employment practice in the corporate field, adverse impact refers to a disparity in the process of hiring, promotion, and separation. In other words, adverse impact is a substantially a different rate of selection in employment decision that adversely affects a protected group. A protected group can be classified based on the aspect of race, color, religion, and gender and origin EEOC in collaboration with the Department of Justice, Civil Service Commission, and the Department of Labor have designed a set of procedures that provide information of guidelines that determine what constitutes a discriminatory test surrounding employment testing, as well as all personnel decisions (Morris & Dunleavy, 2016). Understanding the adverse impact ratio helps the concerned government agencies to correct any personal process that has been identified to contain the disparate or adverse impact (Morris & Dunleavy, 2016). Adverse impact occurs when employers employ uniform standards or procedures are applied to every job applicant despite their differing qualities, hence causing a disadvantage to a particular group.
In essence, the adverse impact ratio is determined by either using the 80% or the four-fifths rule. According to the two rules, an evidence of adverse impact is substantial if the selection rate of a specific group, which is race, ethnicity, and gender falls below four-fifth or 80% of the group with the highest proportion (Morris & Dunleavy, 2016). All employers with 15 or more employees have the obligation to observe the adverse impact of their recruiting, selection and promotion process. In cases of reported violation, the EEOC has the mandate to enforce the federal laws guarding employees against such discrimination. Therefore, many employers are urged to learn and apply the EEOC regulations to avoid lawsuits against their firms.
Adverse impact has handed EEOC a valuable tool to handle the investigations and complaints in employment cases. The relationship between adverse impact, disparate treatment, and disparate impact is also useful in analyzing personnel processes based on gender and ethnicity (Buckley, 2016). Foremost, the disparate impact to discriminatory consequences arising from employers’ actions Employers may intentionally or unintentionally impose personnel processes that are somewhat neutral in their effect to employees with different characteristics, but indeed the adopted practices possess an adverse impact to one particular protected group of employees (Buckley, 2016).The affected group would have a valid case to complain about or pursue justice unless the employer is able to prove that the challenged actions are being inevitable and justified because of business necessity (Buckley, 2016). On the other hand, disparate treatment refers to a situation, whereby some employers treat some employees less equally compared to on the basis of gender and ethnicity. The EEOC regulation looks out on disparate treatment and holds employers liable regardless of whether the action of mistreatment was an active decision or not (Buckley, 2016). Therefore, both the consequences of disparate impact and disparate treatment constitute adverse impacts.
Recently, the EEOC has placed much attention on criminal background checks to point out cases that pose a disparate impact on protected groups such as ethnicity. By doing so, EEOC has issued a suitable ground of enforcement procedures outlining when it is appropriate to implement a criminal background check out (Adrienne Colella, 2018). In addition, intensive pursuant to this new EEOC guideline, employers are cautioned from adopting sweeping policies that inhibit employment because of applicants’ past criminal convictions. Employers are advised to consider the essential requirement of each job and how convictions for a specific offense on a particular offense affects that particular job (Bohlander & Snell, 2010). To minimize instances of disparate treatment and disparate impact, employers ought to carry out an individualized evaluation for every job seeker who is a victim of a criminal background check to determine the severity, period, and the priority of the conviction as well as other justifying situations such as post-conviction work history or rehabilitation efforts before arriving at the decision to either hire or not to hire.
The employment ratio scale in the U.S varies considerably across gender and ethnicity groups. For example, in 2017, the employment-population ratio for all ethnic groups was 49.3% of the African Americans, 56.4 % for Hispanics and Latinos, 63 % for Asians and 65% for Whites (Adrienne Colella, 2018). Although the data are simply annual averages from the 2017 population survey, the differences between ethnicity are determined by many factors such as educational attainment, geographic areas of working and the nature of occupations (Adrienne Colella, 2018). Notably, data hints element of discrimination for the African Americans and the Hispanics have the lowest proportion of the employment ratio compared to their Whites and Asians counterparts. According to the study conducted by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, the applicants from the Black and Hispanics ethnicity recorded a lower e...