Albemarle Paper Co. V.

An appraisal is one of the most commonly used methods of formal assessment and is used to evaluate and assess the performance of an employee against agreed targets and objectives, with the aim of improving employee performance. Where an employee has been able to achieve their targets, the appraisal can be used to recognise successes. This often helps to increase an employee’s confidence and motivation and can lead to better organisational performance. Many organisations will use the outcomes of an appraisal to identify potential candidates for promotions or even an increase in pay. At the same time, an appraisal meeting may include discussions on underperformance, identifying why this has occurred and how this can be avoided in the future.

Performance appraisal is a method which is increasingly used to evaluate employees to determine the degree to which they are performing effectively and encourage them to direct their energies towards organizational performance. Although the appraisal is being practiced, there are criticisms made against the system which generally arise from within the Orthodox and radical management frame work.

Employers that base employment decisions, including hiring and promotion, on protected class characteristics are engaging in disparate treatment. When they do so overtly and argue that it is necessary to limit a particular type of employment to people with specific protected class characteristics, this type of disparate treatment is termed a facially discriminator policy or practice. An important, but limited, defense is available to employers that adopt facially discriminatory requirement is legal. If an employer can show that a particular protected class characteristic is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job in question, the facially discriminatory requirement is legal. According to the Title VII of the Civil Right Act,

Next a case relating to employment difficulties during the Black Civil rights movement was Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the year 1971. The ruling on this case by the Supreme Court was that Duke Power Company was « discriminating against black employees, » because their qualification for employment did « not pertain to applicants ' ability to perform the job,» but rather was influenced by other factors such as race, and therefore they were not hiring people in certain racial

employer might be liable for the discriminatory activities of an employee and employers may also be liable if

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

Surprisingly, it was the first time I heard these two terms and after understanding what they mean it was easier for me to distinguish illegal discrimination. Additionally, now it’s easier for me to understand and explain when and why a situation is utilizing illegal discrimination. However, knowing these definitions will help me in the future by recognizing right away if I am being illegally discriminated. The second thing that I learned is the case, Griggs v. Duke Power. The case is about a black man who was not able to be promoted to a supervisory position, because the organization required a high school diploma, intelligence test, and aptitude test. At the time, most black men didn’t have a high school diploma. In my opinion, the case is significant because it highlights many important things about HR selection. For example, the case recognizes the concept of adverse impact, it concluded that tests administer to job candidates must demonstrate validity, and that intent of employer is irrelevant. Therefore, every time I remember this case I am able to understand adverse impact, that every test for a specific job must be valid, and that intent of employer is

In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.

Employment discrimination cases require the plaintiff to prove that the employer intentionally discriminated on a prohibited basis, such as race, sex, or religion. Using the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green case of 1973, the first step is the person alleging must establish a prima facie case; Secondly, the employer must articulate that a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason exists for the rejection of the challenger; and third, the plaintiff must prove that the organization's reason for their rejection is a pretext for discrimination.

Along with this ruling, the Supreme Court appealed this case. It was believed that the plaintiffs in the case needed more proof. The court wanted the plaintiff to show more reasoning why that individual was denied a job based on race, creed, color, or other factors. The Supreme Court also wanted the employer to show the reasoning behind the testing or the requirements of the job. As a result, the case moved closer to disparate treatment. However, in these types of emotional cases proving the case can be tedious.

The case of Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) brought to the forefront issues that Human Resource professionals may have to address within their organization. This case centered on disparate impact and disparate impact. Although these terms are used, interchangeable impact would prove to be significant in that case. This case centered around Duke Power openly discriminated against a protected class (blacks). In order to be hired into any department other than labor, the company required a high school diploma and/ or a passing score on two tests. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Despite this passage,

Kaiser, chose to train in-house workers using 50% of the trainees who were black until the percentage of black skilled craft workers in the plant approximated the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. The hiring process caused an issue among the other skilled workers when they noticed that six blacks hired and only five whites hired. After that, respondent Weber, one of those white production workers, instituted this class action in Federal District Court. Alleging because the affirmative action program had resulted in junior black employees '

To give a better understanding of the Civil Rights Act and its goals would be the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company which occurred in the early 70s. The legal cause of the case supposed that deliberate racial segregation was illegal, as well as hiring and workplace procedures that have sustained the impacts of past segregation. Also, the deliberate attempt to impede the hiring and progression of minorities, specifically black people, which may have been inadvertent should be forbidden and be renounced by those in charge. The black workers in this case argued that a common test was sufficient to rate someone’s ability to perform at a high level. The company required workers to take the test to be considered for a promotion. Standardized testing has been an intense topic because of the weak educational systems that many minorities have been through making them less to score higher than their white counterparts. This argument was used successfully in the case of the black workers. The decision of the case went against the company. It reformed the Act by looking at disparate impact as opposed to intent. The standard holds that it is not always possible to recognize those who would have been

The case study about the solution for adverse impact is about a federal government agency that had to deal with complaints from job applicants regarding its selection procedure. The specialists in the agency did not pay attention to the discrimination of minorities and gender applicants in previous recruitment process. Bob Santos who is a specialist in the staffing division of the agency knew it was time to evaluate the staffing process, after attending a seminar on the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Bob Santos and a team of specialists decided to use the four fifths rule to assess the

Moody, The U.S. District Court of Appeals ruled that, although unintentional, the assessment tool utilized by Albemarle Paper Company to measure general ability as a predictor of performance unintentionally discriminated against African Americans in favor of Caucasians (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Sturman, 2013, p. 61). Citing the above case, Hireright Consulting determined that the assessment tool selected by RPMC for pre-employment was not practical or effective in measuring the desired variables. With this in mind, Hireright Consulting counseled RPMC that modifying the cutoff scores of the assessment could be interpreted as a violation of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act, explaining that “it is an unlawful employment practice to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of employment-related tests on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin” (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Sturman, 2013, p. 60). Hireright Consulting assisted RPMC in selecting the assessment tool to accurately measure the desired variables sought in candidates, remain compliant with lawful hiring and employment practices, and one that is appropriate for the demographic of the respective