There are regulations that guard employees in the US against discrimination on the part of their employers. Employees who experience employment discrimination have the option to submit a claim. One such case is McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792), which is founded on the burdens and type of proof required to establish a Title VII case that Percy Green brought before the court. (Oppenheimer, 2002).
Between 1956 and 1964, Percy Green, a civil rights activist, worked as a mechanic for McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a manufacturer of aerospace and airplanes. When he was laid off, he protested against the company, claiming that his discharge was racially motivated. Together with other members of the Congress on Racial Equality, he blocked the main road to the firm using cars. During one of the occasions of the protest, on 2nd of July 1965, employees of McDonnell Douglas were locked in the downtown business and were unable to leave the office (Oppenheimer, 2002).
After the incident, the company advertised for vacant mechanic positions where Green reapplied. His application was turned down, with the company claiming of his involvement in the protest that blocked traffic in to and out of the company’s office. Green hence filed a case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or place of origin as well as discrimination against any individual because of opposing any practice made unlawful by the law. He then sued the company in the US District Court on the basis that he was denied the position because of his civil rights activism and race (Oppenheimer, 2002).
Employment law cited by the plaintiff
The plaintiff, Mr. Green, filed a formal complaint claiming that McDonnell Douglas Corporation had violated section 703(a)(1) and 704(a), 42 U.S.C. clause 2000e-2(a)(1) and 2000e-3(a) of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful to discriminate someone on the basis of race, sex (that includes gender identity and pregnancy), color, religion, or national origin. It also states that, it is unlawful to discriminate someone because the person filed a charge of discrimination, complained about discrimination, or was involved in an investigation of employment discrimination. This title prohibits both intentional and practical discrimination based on the above stated factors (Green, 1999).
Section 703(a) (1), 42 U.S.C. clause 2000e-2(a)(1) states that, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. . . .” (Green, 1999).
Section 704(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) states that, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because he has opposed any practice made as unlawful employment practice by this subchapter. . . .” (Green, 1999).
Responsibilities of human resource managers with regard to this law
The human resource managers should at all times during recruitment of employees employ under equal measures that do not discriminate people due to their race, gender, nationality, religion, or because they protest against an unjust act in employment.
While including the job requirements for a vacant position, they should ensure that they are consistent and applicable to all kinds of people qualified for the position.
Decision on the case
When Green filed the case with the EEOC, the commission did not find charges on racial bias. Instead, they concluded that Green was denied the job opportunity because he was involved in the civil rights protests. He then sued the corporation to the district court where they affirmed the EEOC decision. At the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, they remanded the reconsideration of the charge on racial discrimination (Oppenheimer, 2002).
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals made a mistake in arguing that the petitioner did not discharge its burden of proof. According to the Supreme Court, the respondent must be given the opportunity to proof his case by showing evidence related to the circumstance, such as; by showing that people of other races, the whites in this matter, had been retained by the employer while they had engaged in the same activity. The court argued that the complainant’s rights are not confined to EEOC charge. To them, the complainant has the burden of establishing a ‘prima facie case’ where he satisfies that he belongs to a minority race, had applied for the advertised job, he was rejected while possessing the requirements, and that the employer continued to seek for other applicants with the same qualifications as those of the complainant (Oppenheimer, 2002).
Application of the outcome
In the case of discrimination in my organization or other organizations;
The employee should first establish a prima facie case
The employer must produce evidence that there were no cases of discrimination for its actions.
Conclusion
Under Title VII, employees are protected against discrimination in the workplace. Employers who practice discrimination of any kind as stated in the article are answerable to the court. Presentation of such discriminatory cases leads to proper ethical conducts at the places of work.
References
Green, T. K. (1999). Making sense of the McDonnell Douglas framework: Circumstantial evidence and proof of disparate treatment under Title VII. Cal L. Rev., 87, 983.
Oppenheimer, D. B. (2002). McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green Revisited: Why Non-Violent Civil Disobedience Should Be Protected from Retaliation by Title VII. Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev., 34, 635, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/411/792.html
