EEO and AA Programs

Legislation. This analysis focuses on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Equal Employment Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Title VII, as amended by the 1972 Act, prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. Title VII covers employers (a) engaged in an "industry affecting commerce" and (b) employing 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The Equal Protection Clause states that no governing body shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."1

Equal employment opportunity exists when persons with the same ability and talents, who expend approximately the same effort, have approximately the same prospects for success. That is, race, religion, gender, or family background should not be relevant to one's success or failure in the competitive struggle. The phrase affirmative action" originated in 196

. . .
wer courts, and the public to pass legislation to restore rights. Failures and Successes. Between 1965 and 1973 organizations made a good faith effort to comply with EEO/AA guidelines. However, during 1973 non-minorities began to contest and question EEO/AA programs.6 Twenty-five years subsequent to legislation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, subsequent to other attempts by governments and employers to achieve racial parity, and subsequent to several employment discrimination cases, the resounding question is "To what extent does the law require affirmative action when such action encroaches upon the rights of innocent non-minorities?" A preference on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin is, by definition, a violation of Title VII. However, that such a preference is based on the operation of a valid EEO/AA plan may be a defense. For example, if the employer seeks to correct a "manifest imbalance" in traditionally segregated job categories, then gender has been considered a plus in addition to the applicant's other qualifications for the job.7 The court has had to confront cases involving discrimination where individual victims are not easily identifiable. Hence, the U.S. Supreme Court has esta
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Title VII, Supreme Court, Management Results, Civil Rights, Justice Scalia, Simon Schuster, Johnson's Executive, Department Labor, Protection Clause, Moreover Section, title vii, affirmative action, equal employment, equal employment opportunity, employment opportunity, enforcement agencies, civil rights, eeo/aa programs, supreme court, federal government, department labor, federal contract compliance, office federal contract, government printing office, national labor relations,
Approximate Word count = 2909
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page)

More Essays on EEO and AA Programs