Tag: Discrimination

Political Discrimination Faced by Indigenous People in Contemporary Australia

Introduction

Australia is regarded as one of the developed nations in the world. It has a strong economy and has managed to eliminate most of social problems affecting other nations in the world. However, despite of this good rating, the country’s indigenous community that are experiencing so many problems and injustices that portray uneven governance and provision of public amenities. Australian indigenous community is marked by two main groups that include the aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Based on the 2006 approximation of Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were about 517000 people in the country from the two indigenous groups. In general, these individuals account for 2.5% of the entire population in Australia. Based this statistics it was approximated that 90% which accounts for 463700 individuals in the indigenous community were of Aboriginal roots, 4% which accounted for 20100 were a mixture of Torres Strait Islander, while 6% which accounted for 33300 originated from Torres Strait Islander (Dudgeon et al, 2010). Indigenous people are scattered around the country. According to Dudgeon et al. (2010), about 32% of the indigenous community live in big cities, 22% are found in the outer regional parts, 21% are found in the inner regional parts, 15% are found in very remote places, while 9% are found in remote places. Majority of the indigenous community live in the Northern Australia or even extra remote areas. The demographic analysis of the Australian people demonstrates a great social, health, education, economic, and political gap between the non-indigenous and indigenous people. This brings in the question of the political discrimination in the country between non-indigenous and indigenous people. The argument is that in such a developed country with high ability to provide for its citizen, there should never be such a great gap between two communities unless there is political discrimination. This paper traces the political history of Australian indigenous community with intention of identifying cause of the underlying situation.

Political Discrimination among Indigenous Australia

Australian Indigenous has been experiencing social and political injustices since the colonial period. Since the settlement of European in the country, the indigenous communities who were mostly semi-nomadic lost their lands to the settlers for what was termed as economic purposes. This increased the expansion of the industry of pastoral, attracting more British immigrants. This resulted to cattle rustlings where the indigenous community raided cattle from the European flocks and receive retaliation from the Europeans. This eventually resulted into a way between the settlers and the indigenous people. While Indigenous people employed guerilla warfare, the Europeans used military to counter worrier, they later extended their tactics to civilians where they massacred even children and women in the indigenous communities. With intention of eliminating indigenous to extend their land ownership, the European in some parts adopted more crude methods like supplying the indigenous individuals with poisoned flour and sometimes deliberately distributed diseases that included influenza, chicken pox, and measles (Dudgeon et al., 2010). Thiscontained sever impact to the community. The situation became scary as more people indigenous died of diseases, guns, and hunger among other things. With strong military, better weapons and improved war tactics, European managed to defeat indigenous people. They tried to offer themselves to labour for food but the European refused to feed groups but individuals. This resulted to high death rate among the dependents among the community. Despite this, they were also subjected to discriminative government policies that tried to convert, disperse, “protect”, displace and ultimately assimilate them.

Australian territories and states at federation had responsibility and control for indigenous Australians. The states of the newly created federation enacted and framed policies and legislations suites which were restrictive and punitive toward Australian Indigenous community. The Aboriginal Protection Board was established in New South Wales in 1883, and it was given the legal power with enactment of 1909 Aboriginals Protection Act. Similar legislations were passed in other states with intention of controlling the indigenous community. Among other introduced acts included 1869 Aboriginal Act in Australia, the 1912 Cape Barren Island Act in Tasmania, the 1953 Welfare Ordinance and the 1911 Northern Territory Aboriginal Ordinance, and the 1897 Aboriginals protectionand restriction of sale of Opium act in Queensland (Dudgeon et al., 2010; MCcallum, 2008). The main intention of developing these restrictive and punitive laws under indigenous people good was clear. Their impacts were a kind of indigenous Australian culture genocide, by the loss of language, cultural practices cessation, and family dispersion. The 1905 Aborigines act of the Western Australia today contains special meaning due to its gross rights erosion, resulting in forceful separation of children and aboriginal people intimidation in bleak reserves, to liv in despair ad servitude (Reconciliation.org.au, 2013). The year 1905, marked the beginning of formidable oppression and surveillance period for aboriginal people. Although the 1936 Native Administration Act consolidated the complete state rights over aboriginal community, the act of 1905 still act as symbol of oppression among indigenous people as much as the National Referendum in 1967, where the rights of Aboriginal people were won back acts as a symbol of emancipation.

The 1905 act gave the Aborigines Chief Protector the legal guardian to each aboriginal individual and of children that were half-caste. Pastoralists or police constables were given power as Aborigines protectors, and they tookthe role of removing half-caste children from their families in order to give them better life opportunities away from aboriginal environments contaminating influence. Reserves and mission were created for these kids, where the chief protector had the power to transfer the kids from one region to another (McCallum, 2005). Aboriginal were restricted from entering the city without permission, and their women were forbidden from cohabiting with non-aboriginal men. This part of the history shows how legislation became the protector of racism. Although the counter measures were employed in 1967, the damage had already been done and since then, the Aboriginal people have still been struggling to restore their initial strength and life vigour.

Although the 1967 referendum seemed like a breakthrough to the Indigenous communities especially the aboriginal people, there have seemed to be a long way to go. This referendum did not guarantee the community a place in the society or the government and its system. According to Rigney (1999), Indigenous Australia still experience stereotyping, structural alienation and name calling initiated by racism. These oppressions have resulted to the continuation of indigenous people subordination from political, social and educational processes in the society of Australia. The Australian educational institutions and policies have historically been marinated racial and cultural social engineering theories, that have continues to impact current policy, social perceptions, government debates and research with regard to indigenous Australians.

The discrimination in the allocation of the government resources and provision of government services has continued to increase the gap between the indigenous people and the rest of the Australian population. Although there are times that the government had demonstrated interest towards bridging social, education, and economic gap between the indigenous community and the rest, the plan are normally not long lived. According to Sutton(2001), the Australian society is progressively drawing aboriginal culture and religion as being the Aboriginal people province,  especially those in remote and rural communities, which the “new conservative arrangement” between the state and indigenous people contains great resource impacts to Indigenous individuals living in urban environment. For instance, there has been no joint responsibility contract enacted in urban area (Loppie et al., 2014). The important area where the dichotomy is causing disastrous effect is in education of indigenous people. The changes were provoked by the federal government in indigenous policy that included changing the arrangements of funding for indigenous education. This yielded to cuts of two million dollars to the money given to indigenous education funding. As a result, only a few indigenous children will manage to obtain tutorial assistance. In addition, the government cancelled aboriginal student support and parent awareness scheme (ASSPA) funding which enhance communities of individual school to locally organize their own support programs in various urban regions, where most indigenous children live. This fund was used to add to significant community activities that include after school homework clubs, storytelling and dancing activities with elders, breakfast clubs, and assistance in continuation and rival of aboriginal culture. The changes are described as government disrespect to the culture of indigenous people in the country (Davis, 2006).

According to Dudgeon et al. (2010), the history of Australia demonstrates how indigenous rights given by one regime taken away by another regime due to poor political power in the community. For instance, the labour prime minister in 1988 promised a treaty between the state and the indigenous Australians, but it was never completed. In 1989, the Federal Labour Government enacted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Commission Act. However, this act was abolished in 2005 by the Federal Coalition government without indigenous community consultation. In addition there was enactment of 1993 Native Title Act following the High Court ruling on recognition of native land title. During the enactment debate the parliament adjourned the 1975 racial discrimination act which was meant to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination in the country (Thornton, 1990).  In 1998, there was the native title amendment where the parliament reduced aboriginal native title. This amendment again did not employ enough consultation with indigenous people. Although the abolishing of racial discrimination violated the obligation of Australia under the international law, this did not make the parliament to reconsider its decision (Charlesworth&Durbach, 2011).

The abolishment of racial discrimination act has highly propagated the growth of indigenous people discrimination in Australia, especially with regard to the access to public services and facilities. According to Dudgeon et al. (2010), there are high cases of reported individual racist experience among indigenous people especially in health sector. In a racism survey conducted in 2007, it was established that 7.7% of Anglo-Australians overwhelmingly believed in race inequality. Thus, racism is still practiced by a small but significant part of the population. Apart from the self-reported racism cases in health, racism might also burden indigenous Australian to access to quality health in conventional health services. A view that healthcare system in Australia is institutionally racist remains controversial. According to Awofeso (2011) the health system racism view results to the development of values and beliefs on the operation of institutions and result into discriminating over indigenous Australians. Although the political authorities of Australia refuse to acknowledge it, there is consistent reporting of high and increasing rates of racism by indigenous people in the country, which may influence the wellbeing and health of indigenous people (Awofso, 2011).

Indigenous people have been experiencing life challenges in different measures. The there is also a considerable gap between the social, education, health and economic gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. This has been attributed to culture, past social injustices, political discrimination, and general poverty. Although the Australian constitution recognizes indigenous people as members of commonwealth, they are never treated like so. Indigenous people in the country are marginalized, poor and very distance from the rest with regard to the acquiring of the necessary public services. Although this may partly be attributed to cultural factors, it is highly enhanced by the government inability to offer services to all its citizens equally. According toDick andCalma(2007),indigenous Australians are not well provided for by the government especially with regard to social and public amenities while compared to non-indigenous people. Consequently these people suffer from different issues include high rate of diseases, poverty, high rate of drugs and alcohol use, high infant mortality rate, low life expectancy with difference being about 17 years, low access to medical, and education facilities, poor social amenities including safe water to drink, sewerage system, healthy housing, and rubbish collection services (King et al., 2009). Despite all this,there is very little being done to reduce the gap between the indigenous and non-indigenous people in the country. As discussed above, the Australian legislature has developed a habit of nullifying what was enacted by the previous legislatures to protect the indigenous community. In this regard, their political struggle to be treated right like all other citizens or members of commonwealth has never been successful. This is possibly due to constant nullification of their previous efforts, making it hard to achieve anything tangible in the long run.

The political struggle of indigenous people has been real for so many years. According to Henderson (2015), there have been various referendum proposals in the country; around 44, but only a few; 9 have been successful. However, there has been no particular constitutional reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. According to advocates indigenous Australians recognition in the founding document is important, both practically and symbolically. Moreover, there are various race references in the country’s constitution that permit indigenous Australians discrimination by the government (Henderson, 2015). Being minorities groups in the country, and hence in the parliament, it is considerably hard for the indigenous people to initiate change in the constitution. Moreover, most governments are not ready to invest the national resources in uplifting the life of aboriginal people, maybe due to their poor contribution to the national revenue (Maria-Eugenia et al., 2009). This makes it considerably hard to handle the situation as it should be handled.

Conclusion

The government of a country has a role to provide for its citizen equally to enhance equal growth and to promote good health and wellbeing in the country. However, this is not the case in Australia. Although the country is regarded among the developed nation, it has not managed to cover the gap between the poor indigenous people and the rest of the population. The indigenous Australians who have experienced social injustices under the governance of Europeans have since lived in poverty, and any effort employed to liberate them is overturned by legislators in the future. In this regard, it has been considerably hard to uplift their life to match the standards of other Australians. The analysis demonstrates how the Australian indigenous has been experiencing political discrimination such that it has been proven hard for them to liberate themselves from these discriminations.

Discrimination in the Public School System – Social Injustice Essay

The world we currently live in presents situations where unjust actions are continually being normalized. In other cases, they are standardized, and inequality becomes institutionalized even when it is apparent that these policies are, in essence, illegal (Dronkers 45). I can attest to the fact that social injustice remains a modern-day plague as I fell victim to  it while going through the inner-city public school system. Although we believed the typical facade that the education system was a level playing field, there still existed a vast chasm between students. The reality on the ground was that students enrolled in a public school, like I was, end up missing out on most of the lucrative opportunities that life has to offer. This inequality stems from a system of discrimination that separates the students based on their academic achievement. Looking back, I remember how such injustice manifested itself. On the one hand, we had regular students who were the majority and would always wait for the school bell to ring so that they could head home. On the other side of the divide, there were honor students engaging in academic discussions.The presence of such a system would ensure that these select few would achieve more due to the advantages accorded. The rest lack this opportunity and have to put up with a substandard curriculum that they are expected to master just to get through school. In this essay, I will discuss the social injustice ingrained in the education system, its effects and possible remedies for the problem.

 

The barefaced inequality that is often witnessed in inner-city public schools stems from lack of resources to deal with a fluctuating number of students. In most cases, there is a pitiable student to teacher ratio in crammed classes. The general expectation is that these teachers would pay equal attention to all the students, but this is rarely the case. For instance, our  teachers would focus more on the quick learners, while slow learners were rarely shown any attention. Through such this form of discrimination, the latter’s grades would suffer periodically and in essence, put them at a disadvantage. Researchers contend that children are most impressionable when young due to their cognitive development stage. Most of these schools lack the most basic of resources which is shocking, considering that they are widespread around the country. They are also mostly underfunded and the main reason why a large number of their students lack holistic education. As a result, most of the students I studied with lacked a fair chance to compete with students from both state-funded schools and their peers in “special programs.” Moreover, teachers make a habit of advising parents of high-achieving students to enroll them in other supplementary classes, maybe even an online course, which would then enable them to be ahead of the other students. Students who are unable to afford such luxuries are left struggling through their remedial lessons. The chances are that these students also lack internet at home as compared to their counterparts whose patents can afford to hire a private tutor.

The educational inequality that presents itself when parents enroll their children in public schools while still making efforts to boost their grades through the introducing additional programs effects those who cannot afford them negatively. A student receiving private tutelage perpetuates this inequality by benefiting from the opportunity they get at a public school. They create unfair advantage especially when most of their schoolmates cannot afford them. As a result, they get better grades in comparison to their counterparts. The are also able to take up extra classes in local colleges which would enable them to obtain a “smart start” regarding their competitive advantage is concerned. These students receive all the opportunities one would require to be successful in high school and the reason why they easily qualify to join prestigious universities. For this particular group, success is guaranteed due to the highly marketable courses that they pursue. Nonetheless, the same cannot be said for the average students who teachers did not pay attention. The only chance that they have is being able to graduate from their local high schools with the most requisite of skills. Community college or a local vocational school becomes the only options if they are to make any academic progress. I have personally been witness to the effects of this state of inequality when most of my former schoolmates from the public school system were not able to meet the university requirements. Most of them knew that it would e difficult for them to get decent jobs and had to settle for menial employment opportunities in life. The only chance that they are accorded with is graduating from their local high school with requisite skills, proceeding to a vocational school or community college where their chances at a decent job are quite low.

One of the most effective techniques to end this inequality would require the retraining of teachers on handle their students. They would now be needed to improve their method of instruction that will see all the students receive equal attention. It would be prudent for all the students to study in the same classroom as this would end any institutionalized discrimination. Increasing funds for public schools will also be a significant step in ensuring that there is social justice in the education system. Teachers will be empowered through unique programs that would now enable them to meet the needs of all the students succeed. Furthermore, an increase in the number of teachers would ensure that their student to teacher ratio is fulfilled, which is essential in providing that the teachers are not overwhelmed with the number of students that they would have to tutor. It creates an environment where the teachers can focus on providing holistic education to all those under their care with the sole goal of ensuring that no student is left behind  (Holsinger and Jacob 12). These funds would also benefit the school in general as they would now be able to provide the much-needed learning resources that are required by students to enable them to study. Students require furniture, learning materials, books and stationery which are quite costly. Increasing the amount of money that these inner-city public schools get will ensure that they can bear the cost of these necessities while creating an enabling environment for all students.

Download full sample social injustice essay on Discrimination in the Public School System or order a unique essay on a social injustice of your choice at an affordable price.

Would Direct or Indirect Price Discrimination Benefit An Organization?

Would an organization benefit from using direct or indirect price discrimination. Why or why not? Provide an example.

Price discrimination is the practice of charging different prices from different customers for the same product. Yes, organization benefit from price discrimination.

In direct price discrimination, a monopolist gains maximum as he extracts whole consumer surplus available to a consumer. A monopolist charges highest possible price from different consumers on the basis of maximum amount they are willing to pay, thus leaving them with no consumer surplus. Example of direct discrimination is the markets for unique art pieces and online auctions.

Under indirect price discrimination, a monopolist charges that amount from the consumer which leaves them with some amount of consumer surplus. It involves the seller charging different marginal prices depending upon the quantity of goods purchased. The seller does not need to exogenously divide the consumers into classes. The schedule of prices offered to consumers is designed so that each consumer reveals his type by self-selecting a quantity to purchase with corresponding marginal price. This kind of price discrimination is called block pricing.

MGMT – 01 – Compensation/Discrimination – Family Business Case Study Analysis

This paper aims at analyzing ethical and legal notions surrounding a case study that relates to the laws of employment. In this case study, the stakeholders are the R & S Electronic Service Company’s management and the employees of the company. Both the stakeholders have varied interests: the management’s main interest is to see that the company succeeds in making profits. It is, also, interested in keeping the confidentiality of employee pay scales and salaries. It is, also, essential to note that the interest of all the stakeholders is follow the company policies while undertaking their policies.

In regard to legal analysis, there are employment or labor laws that are significant to this particular case. The National Labor Relations Act is the first law that can apply to this case. This law enables employees working for the private sector to take cooperative negotiations especially for the terms and conditions of work (Morgan & Rotunds, 2014). As seen in the case study, payroll manager understands the salary discrepancies that exist in the company, but cannot raise complains since the general manager already had informed her about the consequences. The second law that applies to this case is the Fair Labor Standards Act that stipulates guidelines for overtime payment and wage programs for employees working in both private and public sector. In this regard, issues to do with pay scales and salaries are treated with a lot of confidentiality since payment of such salaries does not follow the correct channels. This is evident from the payment disparities witnessed in the case study between Greg and other service technicians.

The Civil Rights Act is another law that essentially applies to this case in the sense that it safeguards employees against any form of discrimination on whichever basis be it gender, origin, race or color (Morgan & Rotunds, 2014). In the case study at hand, it is clear that Greg receives more favors than other employees because he shares a fraternal relationship with the general manager of the company. This is why, despite their great performances, other employees receive low remuneration. The federal authority should levy heavy fines to management for violation of labor laws. It is, therefore, essential for one of the employees to speak out, especially now that the payroll manager has the information so that the United States Department of Labor can intervene and correct the situation.

Ethical reasoning and moral improvement is the most essential concept, which the payroll manager should embrace in order to solve the problem (Levin & Mather, 2012). In regard to the case study, it is evident that different conditions of any given scenario provide basis for varying views. An instance is evident where some situations present conditions that require the manager to cooperate with the dishonesties of the company while other situations present conditions of direct dishonesty to the manager. This is why Jane is confused about speaking about employee discrimination or keeping quiet in order to retain her job. In this case, ethical considerations are at the center stage of influencing reasoning and the entire decision making process. Since individual honesty and moral obligation are ethical issues that arise from dishonesty in this case scenario, it is essential for Jane to consider the situation of the discriminated employees and hence report the matter to Brad.

Application of the rights theory is essential as it can enable Jane make ethical decisions through comparison of the consequences of reporting to the management and remaining silent regarding the unethical conduct that prevails in the company. This theory is essential for ensuring that all decision making levels show respect for the rights of all the stakeholders (Morgan & Rotunds, 2014). These rights include sovereignty of speech, the freedom of conscience and communication, and free consents. This theory advocates that the manager has an essential responsibility to report any instances of unethical conduct using the provided jurisdictions. In this regard, Jane’s continuity to work in the company will be enjoyable only if she exercises the guaranteed constitutional rights, which thus will enable her promote the moral value.

The arguments of this theory further indicate that if resource circulation happens in a fair and transparent manner, then circulation method is just and should be recommended regardless of the disparity levels experienced (Levin & Mather, 2012). It further insists that an act of morality is the kind that promotes the rights of other people as opposed to interfering with them. Individual privileges can be emphasized if reasoning regards this theory that allows people to be free in their actions only if they do not interfere with other people. Therefore, putting an end to contravention of labor laws is the best decision that Jane can make.

To conclude, it is essential to consider ethical reasoning while making actionable decisions. However, it is significant to note that this will differ depending on the kind of situation that is being experienced. Therefore, incorporation of personal integrity and moral values is essential while making decisions in a setting such as the one provided in this case study. This consideration will give rise to decisions that support the interests of all stakeholders in general.

The Real Difference Between Race And Color Under The Anti-Discrimination Law

Introduction

Some forms of employee discrimination are intended and entail unequal treatment of particular groups of employees. Other forms of employee discrimination are unintended but have unequal, or disparate, impacts on particular groups of employees (Figart, 1997). Neoclassical economics theorists define employment discrimination as the dissimilar treatment, or management, of two employees who are similarly qualified based on considerations of factors such as their ages, mental or physical disabilities, genders, nationalities, religious persuasions, skin colors, and racial extractions (Darity & Mason, 1998). The second section of this paper examines whether there are legal differences between employment discrimination hinged on race and employment discrimination based on skin pigmentation, or color.

Differences between Race and Color under the Anti-Discrimination Law

Bases for Discrimination in Employment

Various bases for employee discrimination are spelt out clearly in the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII.  The law was enacted in 1964. Title VII is applicable to employers who have at least 15 employees. In the meaning of Title VII, an employer can be an individual, a state government, a local government or authority, the US federal government, an employment agency or a labor organization (CSOSA, 2015).

Title VII safeguards persons from being discriminated against by employers based on considerations of their colors and racial extractions, nationalities, religious orientations, and sex. As well, Title VII safeguards persons from being discriminated against by employers based on considerations their ages, disabilities, pregnancy statuses, and sexual orientations. Besides, it bars employers from engaging in discriminating practices against particular employees with respect to reprisals and compensation.

Based on Title VII, it is illegal to show favoritism towards any candidate seeking employment or employee owing to her or his color or race. The favoritism and the corresponding discrimination are illegal with respect to employee hiring, compensation, employment privilege, condition, job training, promotion, and termination. Title VII outlaws the making of decisions by employers based on assumptions, as well as stereotypes, about the performance, traits, or abilities of employees from particular racial extractions. Besides, Title VII outlaws on purpose discrimination along with neutral employment policies that unduly exclude employees from minority populations on considerations that are not linked to their jobs according to CSOSA (2015). In the following subsection, race is examined as a foundation for discrimination.

Race as a Foundation for Discrimination

Race is essentially a social, or societal, construct. The persons who are deemed socially to belong to one race share distinctive and similar physical attributes according to Cartmill (1998). The term “race” is utilized commonly in referring to sharing a language. As well, it is used in denoting national affiliations. From around mid-17th century, the term has been utilized largely in referring to phenotypical, or physical, attributes. Notably, from the early 19th century, the term has been used in to deliver taxonomic or biological meanings by denoting particular human groupings with characteristic phenotypes (Keita, Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston & Rotimi, 2004).

Racial groupings and societal conceptions keep on evolving and so are the folk taxonomies used in defining vital types of persons in accordance with socially perceived attributes. Biological essentialism is now widely considered obsolete by scientists, who are averse to racial justifications for shared differentiation in behavioral, as well as physical, attributes. Keita, Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston and Rotimi (2004) support that assertion. In some states, police officers profile suspects in accordance with race. The usage of racial extractions is commonly criticized for promoting an old-fashioned social appreciation of variations in human biology and propagating stereotypes according to RAND (2015). Given that in many human populations racial categorizations are closely related to societal stratification, those studying societal inequalities view race as a considerable variable.

The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (2015) characterizes employees who face race discrimination as those whose employers treat them unjustly owing to their races or the races of their relations. The association indicates that there are two forms of discrimination hinged on race: indirect and direct. An employee is deemed to have faced direct, or express, race discrimination when she or he is treated less sympathetically than others in comparable circumstances owing to her or his race.

Notably, in the UK, the discrimination is legal in some cases. Especially, it is legal for employers to treat some employees less sympathetically than other employees when the employers can demonstrate that only particular races are adept at doing particular jobs. In such cases, that selective treatment of particular races is deemed to be a job, or occupational, requirement as opposed to an act of discrimination according to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (2015). That is the case in the US. As noted earlier, Title VII provides exceptions to its provisions outlawing the making of decisions by employers based on assumptions, as well as stereotypes, about the performance, traits, or abilities of employees from particular racial extractions (CSOSA, 2015). In this subsection, race has been examined as a foundation for employment discrimination. In the next section, color is explored as a foundation for employment discrimination.

Color as a Foundation for Discrimination

Jones (2001) indicates that the acts of discrimination that are hinged on skin pigmentation, or color, constitute colorism while those based on race constitute racism. Colorism, or discrimination that is hinged on the pigmentation, entails prejudices that are defined by having persons treated dissimilarly owing to the meanings linked to their skin pigmentations by particular societies (Jones, 2001). Walker (1983) coined the word, or term “colorism” in mid-1982. Notably, the term is not in any way synonymous with the word racism.

Race is dependent on manifold factors, which include one’s ancestry, rather than depending solely on skin pigmentation. The pigmentation is just of the bases employed in assigning persons to given racial classes, or categories. On the other hand, race comprises of sets of assumptions and beliefs that are assigned to the classes. Racism is essentially the reliance of societal statuses on the societal meanings linked to different races. Colorism is essentially the reliance of societal statuses on the pigmentation alone. For any discriminatory act to be deemed an act motivated by colorism, disparate treatment ought not to stem from any given racial classification, but from particular societal values linked to skin pigmentation according to Jones (2001).

Specifically, colorism is common in the US, Latin America, India, Africa, Southeast Asia as well as East Asia (Bancroft-Hinchey, 2001; Jones, 2001). According to Lynn (2008), the extant colorism’s abundance stems from the international pigmentocracy prevalence. Social scientists use the term “pigmentocracy” in describing societies or populations in social, as well as wealth, statuses are dependent on skin pigmentation. Across the many pigmentocracies globally, persons with light skins enjoy the highest communal, or social, as well as wealth, statuses (Bancroft-Hinchey, 2001). Their most favored statuses are followed by those with brown skins. Those who are black-skinned remain at the base of any given societal hierarchy.

Skin pigmentation bias has made certain that employers in given fields prefer to employ individuals with certain skin colors. For instance, in aviation jobs, light-skinned individuals are more likely to land employment than the brown-skinned and black-skinned individuals with comparable qualifications (Chesnutt, 2014). In America, colorism defines every race. Even then, it occurs most frequently among Blacks, European Americans, natives, Indian Americans, Mexican Americans as well as Asian Americans according to Jones (2001). This subsection and the preceding one have entailed an examination of skin color and race as foundations especially for employment discrimination. In the following subsection, the legal differences in the place values of color and race as foundations for discrimination are examined.

Legal Difference between Race and Color

In the US, legal, or public, offices consider race and color as being different considerations. For instance, the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (2015) defines color as typically referring to skin pigmentation, or color, only. The same office defines race as typically referring to ethnological categorizations and physical attributes. The physical attributes usually linked to race are skin color, hair texture, and facial characteristics. Ethnological categorizations that are at times linked to race include Native American, Asian, African, Caucasian, Oriental, Polynesian, Jewish, European, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Some populations consider a number of these categorizations, as well as the related terms, offensive or outdated according the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (2015).

Title VII safeguards all persons against being discriminated against in employment. As noted earlier, Title VII safeguards persons from being discriminated against by employers based on considerations of their colors and racial extractions, nationalities, religious orientations, and sex. As well, Title VII safeguards persons from being discriminated against by employers based on considerations their ages, disabilities, pregnancy statuses, and sexual orientations. Besides, it bars employers from engaging in discriminating practices against particular employees with respect to reprisals and compensation.

As noted earlier as well, based on Title VII, it is illegal to show favoritism towards any candidate seeking employment or employee owing to her or his color or race. The favoritism and the corresponding discrimination are illegal with respect to employee hiring, compensation, employment privilege, condition, job training, promotion, and termination. Title VII outlaws the making of decisions by employers based on assumptions, as well as stereotypes, about the performance, traits, or abilities of employees from particular racial extractions. Besides, Title VII outlaws on purpose discrimination along with neutral employment policies that unduly exclude employees from minority populations on considerations that are not linked to their jobs as explained by CSOSA (2015) and EEOC (2015).

Title VII is violated by acts of discrimination that are based on immutable attributes linked to race. The attributes include particular facial features, hair texture, or skin pigmentation. Even then, some members of a given race may not have the same features as the rest. Title VII as well outlaws any act of discrimination based on conditions that chief affect particular races. The exception to that provision is where the discrimination is consistent with, as well as related to, legal job and business necessities. As noted earlier, Title VII provides exceptions to its provisions outlawing the making of decisions by employers based on assumptions, as well as stereotypes, about the performance, traits, or abilities of employees from particular racial extractions (CSOSA, 2015).

For instance, given that Blacks are markedly predisposed to suffering sickle-cell anemia, employment policies excluding persons with the condition are discriminatory save for cases where the policies are related to particular jobs and are match particular legal business necessities. Equally, employment policies that obligate employees to shave their beards clean may be discriminative against Black males since they are highly predisposed to development rather painful shavings save for cases where the policies are related to particular jobs and are match particular legal business necessities.

Legally, even though there is a clear overlap between color, or skin pigmentation, and race, they are not deemed synonymous. Color-based discrimination may happen between individuals from similar ethnic or racial extractions or between individuals from dissimilar ethnic or racial extractions. Notably, there is no express definition in statute for skin pigmentation, or color, as a discrimination basis. Even then, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the US court system read the term “color” as having its normally appreciated meanings: skin complexion, skin tone, skin pigmentation or skin shade (EEOC, 2008).

Consequently, color-based discrimination happens in cases where individuals face prejudices owing to the color attributes like skin darkness or skin lightness. Title VII outlaws color, as well as race, discrimination against every person, including persons of Caucasian origin. Even though plaintiffs are capable of proving discrimination claims via circumstantial evidence or straightforward, or direct, evidence, various courts hold that if White plaintiffs depend on circumstantial evidence in establishing claims of reverse form of discrimination, they ought to suffice a higher proof standard than other plaintiffs prosecuting color-based discrimination claims.

On the other hand, the commission takes all plaintiffs prosecuting color-based discrimination claims as legally bound to meet the same proof standard, their racial extractions and evidence in their possession notwithstanding according to EEOC  (2008). Notably, in processing the claims, the plaintiffs ultimately shoulder the persuasion burden before the courts and before the commission. The third section of this paper explores the reasons why all employees should be safeguarded from discriminatory practices and acts based on skin pigmentation and race.

Need for Protection from Discrimination Based On Color and Race

All prospective employees and current employees should be protected against both color-based discrimination and race-based discrimination owing to a number of reasons. The two types of discrimination and all discriminatory acts are dehumanizing. When persons are treated dissimilarly owing to their skin color or racial extraction, they are denied their agency as individual beings according to Philosophy (2005) and Segall (2012).

Employers who treat employees dissimilarly owing to their skin color or racial extraction imply that their skin pigmentations or racial affiliations are adequately informative for them to appreciate who the employees actually are and what they are they are like. That insults the employees’ dignity as individuals in addition to denying them their individual agencies. The employees deny that their individual employees are distinct and free agents and persons (Philosophy, 2005; Segall, 2012). Indeed, individual employees are distinct and free agents and persons whom no one can conclusively specify based on their group attributes or affiliations. The next section demonstrates how the findings arrived at so far in this paper are of significance to practicing managers.

Significance of Findings to Practicing Managers

The findings are rather significant to the managers since they demonstrate to them that neither color-based discrimination nor race-based discriminations against employees and prospective employees are legally acceptable. The managers should play a leading role in safeguarding employees and prospective employees from being discriminated against so as to protect them from being dehumanized by having human dignity stripped off them. It is essential that the managers know that when persons are treated dissimilarly owing to their skin color or racial extraction, they are denied their agency as individual beings according to Philosophy (2005) and Segall (2012).

Besides, the findings are significant to the managers since they inform them about the considerations they should make when formulating employment policies, especially the ones that may be legally deemed to be inconsistent with, as well as unrelated to, legal job and business necessities. The policies violate Title VII if they have any effect of excluding some classes of would-be employees or employees based on their skin pigmentations or racial extraction.  The managers can legally treat some employees less sympathetically than other employees when the employers can demonstrate that only particular races are adept at doing particular jobs. The last section of this paper is its conclusion. It provides a summary of the paper’s subject and findings.

Download full sample research paper on The Real Difference Between Race And Color Under The Anti-Discrimination Law or order a plagiarism free paper at an affordable price. 

Typical Manifestations Of Discrimination In The Workforce

Equality in the Work place

Persistent inequalities in organizations, employment, housing together with a wide range of other social domains has been renewing interest in the possible discrimination role. Most of research especially involving African Americans and other racial minorities have proved that there is discrimination in the work place, in housing, and also in the other every day social settings.

A lot of social and economic inequality in the United States and the other industrialized countries in the world have been created in the organizations, in day to day work and activities and organizing the work. Activists in unions have laid their demands in such understanding, as have civil rights and feminist reformers. Race, gender and class dynamics may lead to power discrimination and differentials in an organization. These deleterious effects are specifically troubling for non-profit agencies which possess diverse community and employee bases and such endeavor to redress inequality socially through program and service provision (Hideg & Ferris, 2016).

Race, gender and are profoundly influential in the health of the human services win any given organization. How they are structured, form identity, decision making on the service delivery, and prioritizing the work. Discrimination and discriminatory practices are the common foci of race, gender and class in the organizational studies. Simple as it seems, a question that preoccupy the co temporally literature over discrimination acts will center on its continuing relevance. Almost half a century ago, the discrimination acts were widespread and overt. Today, it is difficult to assess the degree in which every day’s opportunities and experiences are shaped by the ongoing discrimination forms. Nevertheless, it is necessary to know when and how discrimination does play a role in resource and opportunities allocation.

Employment discrimination may occur when a job applicant or an employee is unfavorably treated due to his or her skin color, race, gender, national origin or age, mental or physical disability, genetic information or the parenthood.  Work discrimination in an organization may occur in any of the following situations; suggesting or stating a preferred candidate in a job advertisement, excluding potential job applicants during recruitment, denying compensation to particular employees including the benefits, paying different salaries to equally qualified employees, discriminating while assigning disability leave retirement options or a maternity leave, disrupting or denying the use of firm’s facilities and also discrimination while issuing lay-offs or promotions (Sarvaiya & Eweje, 2016).

Example 1: Gender Discrimination

Quick Numbers which is an accounting company gives workers annual pay rise. Mary has been passed over for the pay rise two years in a row. She now has discovered that the company only gives a pay rise to male employees, and only to male employees. This amounts to gender discrimination, because the female workers have not been afforded equal benefits as male workers.

Example 2: Racial Discrimination

A law firm with one open position for a lawyer who is specialized in handling financial cases and to which they are intending to promote an existing employee. One candidate is a white man and who holds a bachelor degree in accounts, and who has handled the company’s cases for four years. The second candidate is an African-American employee holding accounts master’s degree and another degree in law.

The firm goes ahead to promote the white male candidate, and alters the position to make a junior attorney to work together with him. This made the other applicant to believe that he did not receive the promotion due to his race, rather than on lack for the job qualifications.

Example 3: Religious Discrimination

Catherine’s new employer, at her orientation, she explained that all workers were to meet in the main break room before the workday had started for a group prayer. The next day when Catherine tried to give thanks to her supervisor for the chance, and explained that she preferred not to participate, she was informed that pre work day group prayer was required for every employee. The employer does not require altering its own custom religious practices, which requires a worker to participate may be considered religious discrimination.

The effects of discrimination in a firm may be small or huge and this depends on the employee’s reaction. When significant, it can hurt the businesses’ progress and productivity as;

It creates tension as if an individual is being discriminated based on gender, a woman employee working the same as a man but not receiving the same compensation may bring tense in the business environment. A tense atmosphere can never be conducive when getting work done.

Decreased production as an employee will less likely want to work with others as a team when some of the employees do not receive fair treatment and with the same consideration and respect as others. Employees may respond to the lack of fairness by not being able to work to be best of their abilities, and which means low productivity than in a congenial atmosphere.

Causes conflicts which naturally arises after workers are discriminated against based on their gender. Workers can have problems related to one another when there is unfair treatment by the top management to some particular employees (Dipboye & Colella, 2013).

Employment Law – Hiring , Firing , Discrimination – Marwan Case Study

Directions:

Research employment law related to hiring/firing and discrimination, using your textbook, the Argosy University online library resources, and the Internet. Based on the facts of the case and research, write an analytical paper. In the paper, respond to the following questions:

  • What civil rights laws may prohibit Marwan’s conduct with his fellow co-worker? Do those laws apply to his conduct toward the park guest?  Explain both answers.
  • Did Marwan commit sexual harassment? If so, what type? Explain your answers and the terms you use.
  • What is the legal nature of Marwan ‘s employment?  Explain your answers and the terms you use.
  • What actions and steps should Studio Five take against Marwan? Explain what actions you considered and why you either recommend them or reject them.
  • Discuss Marwan’s allegation that he is being discriminated against based on his disability and what response Studio Five may have to that allegation. What would each of them have to prove in court?
  • If the female employee sues Studio Five Theme Park, what defenses can Studio Five use?  Are they liable for Marwan’s conduct even if they were unaware of and did not approve of Marwan’s actions? Explain your answers and the terms you use.
  • If Marwan was a member of a union that had a collective bargaining agreement with Studio Five, would that change any of your previous answers?
  • What types of company policies, procedures, and actions should businesses employ to avoid harassment of their employees?

Write a ten-page paper in Word format. Apply APA standards for writing style to your work.

 

Marwan has worked at Studio Five Theme Park as a character actor portraying a swash-buckling pirate. He does not have an employment contract.  He loves his job because of his seniority with the company and all the attention he receives from the guests in the park. Unknown to anyone, his prosthetic leg has no noticeable impact on Marwan’s success in this position.

Marwan has become an accomplished flirt with all this attention, and now goes to the extent of placing his hands on the female guests’ behinds when posing for pictures. The women he has encountered so far have not complained, didn’t seem to mind, or they were taken by such surprise they were not sure how to respond.

One day, Marwan grabbed the breast of one of his fellow female actors who had been recently hired. When she threatened to report him, Marwan told her that he could get her fired if she did not go on a date with him. The fellow employee reported the incident anyway and Marwan was terminated immediately. Marwan contends that he was terminated as a result of physical disability.

Sociological Analysis – Oppression And Discrimination

In terms of sociological analysis, what do you make of this situation below? Is there anything Kevin can do?

Sociological Analysis – Oppression And Discrimination Assignment Guidelines

  • Address the following in 1,200–1,500 words:
    • What is oppression, and what measures can be taken to eliminate it from the workplace? Explain.
    • What are the mechanics of oppression?
    • What does scapegoating mean?
    • What does tyranny of majority mean?
    • What is a legitimizing myth, and how does it factor into discrimination?
    • Why are issues of intolerance important?
    • What issues are evident in the above scenario? Explain.
    • Based on what you have learned in this course, how would you address these issues? Explain in detail.
    • How does this issue relate to discrimination?
    • Are there any commonalities among minority groups in terms of oppression?
    • In what way can this situation be compared with other forms of discrimination?
    • Is there any legal action that can be taken? Why or why not?
    • The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell took effect in December 2010 ending a 17-year ban on openly homosexual members in the military. How has this influenced the realities for homosexual military members?
    • What are the implications for same-sex partners or spouses since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense Of Marriage Act in 2013?
      • Provide specific examples.
  • Use at least 3 scholarly sources to fully support your arguments.
  • You should reference all sources using APA style.

Scenario – Diversity in American Life 

Kevin is a hardworking salesperson at a local department store in a small town. He is a great salesperson and takes pride in his work. He is single and is new to the area.

When Kevin first started, he was introduced to everyone by Sally, his trainer. They went to the break room, and Sally said to enjoy the remainder of his break and left. Shortly after she left, one of the employees introduced himself to Kevin and made a lewd remark about Sally. The other male employees sitting in the break room laughed and made similar comments under their breath. Kevin remained silent and changed the subject.

Kevin’s friend Ned who he met playing volleyball works in a business that is close to Kevin’s store, so they go out to lunch on a regular basis. One day, Ned picked up Kevin to go to lunch and his coworkers saw them. Another time, when they were on their way to a game after work, one of his coworkers ran into them. Since then, whenever Kevin enters the break room, the other male employees give him the silent treatment. It seems that whenever he leaves the break room, the other male employees erupt into laughter. At other times when he approaches his coworkers, they abruptly stop talking and glance secretively at one another. It becomes clear to Kevin that some of his fellow employees seem not to like him, but he is not sure why.

Because of his strong work ethic and customer service skills, Kevin is promoted to assistant manager. This creates tension among the other employees who have worked there for a longer period of time. During his first week as assistant manager, Kevin asks Bill and Ted to help him stock the new shipment of merchandise throughout the store. Bill and Ted reluctantly start to help him unload the truck. Kevin leaves them to finish the job and returns to the floor. He returns later to find them on an unscheduled break. Bill is on his cell phone and Ted is found smoking a cigarette out behind the store. Much of the merchandise still remains in the truck. Kevin decides that they should be written up for the infraction.

Weeks later, Kevin’s boss, Frank, calls him into the office. He explains that there have been some complaints from customers about Kevin. Without giving much detail, Frank explains that the company’s image is very important for sales and customer satisfaction. He goes on to explain that family values are very important to the image of the store and the community. He continues to say that Kevin’s sales are not what they used to be and that there were some errors on the invoices. He goes on to say that it is unfortunate, but it is just not going to work out. He finishes by stating that the company has a policy that an employee may be let go for any reason and he is terminated.

Kevin protests and asks Frank to explain why he is being fired but Frank says that his decision is final and that the matter is closed.

Anti-discrimination Laws as Relates to Employment – Vacancy Announcement

Vacancy Announcement – Administrative Assistant

Job Description:

The Administrative Assistant under the leadership of the department team leader will providesupport services that must be accurate, consistent and of high quality. The Administrative Assistant will work closely with the Administrative Associate, the Programme Assistants, and the Regional advisors.

Description of the job duties:

  • Provide support in management of assets and maintenance of the office
    • Maintain staff records and calendars for members of the department
    • Maintain the department’s office inventory records and administrative files
  • Provide support in the analysis and management of the department’s portfolio
    • Ensure that the department’s portfolio is maintained and always up-to-date
    • Translation of simple correspondences whenever the need arises
  • Provide support to activities around building and sharing knowledge
    • Participate in the training of department staff on administration matters
    • Contribute appropriately to communities of practice and other knowledge networks
  • Coordinate the department’s procurement processes in accordance with the company’s rules and regulations
    • Ensure the department complies fully with the policies, strategies, regulations, and rules of the organization.
    • Prepare requisition forms, proposals, and bids including their preliminary evaluation, and purchase orders.
  • Provide support to logistical and administrative services
    • Make travel arrangements, prepare travel authorizations, and make hotel reservations for the department’s travel activities.
    • Give administrative assistance in the preparation of meetings, workshops and conferences
  • Perform any other duties under the instruction of the supervisor that relate to the objectives of the department

Description of the minimum qualifications:

The incumbent must be in possession of a high school diploma. An administration certification would be highly desirable. A university degree in Social Sciences, Business Administration, or Public Administration is not a requirement but will be an added advantage.

This Organization is committed to the achievement of cultural, nationality and gender diversity in the workplace. Applications from persons with disabilities and applicants from minority groups are equally encouraged.

Ten Illegal Questions that must not be asked in the interview

  1. What is your country of origin?

One’s national origin may be used a basis for discrimination and cause an applicant to be denied the opportunity to work. This question should not be asked and an interviewer should only aim to know whether the applicant has authorization to work in the country (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).

  1. Is English your first language?

A language proficiency test or question would be a better approach to finding out the languages read, written, or spoken fluently; otherwise, this question is lawfully wrong in that it has the potential to reveal one’s country of origin, which is possible grounds for discrimination and is thus prohibited by anti-discrimination law.

  1. Are you married?

It is legally wrong to seek information about one’s marital status if it has nothing to do with the nature of their job (Bloch, 1994). This question has the potential to make assumptions about a candidate’s level of commitment.

  1. Do you observe any religious holidays?

This loaded question harbors a secret agenda such as the need to identify the candidate with a certain religion, and does not have a genuine bearing on the candidate’s ability to perform the duties of the job for which they are being interviewed.

  1. Do you have children?

This question has been used to deny people; especially women, the opportunity to work, and is thus considered an illegal factor to base an employment decision.Whether a candidate has the time or commitment to meet their work obligations should not be implied from the fact that they have or intend to have children.

  1. How old are you?

This question is especially notorious when it applies to people who are over forty years of age. Ageism is illegal and discriminatory in nature, as it makes assumptions on issues like when one is likely to retire and how many years they are likely to give in service to the potential employer (Rabin-Margalioth, 2003).

  1. Are you a social drinker?

This question seeking to find out an individual’s drinking habits may disclose whether the applicant is a recovering alcoholic, however, according to Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the treatment of alcoholism is protected alongside any other disability information and should not be asked (Feldblum, 2000).

  1. Might you have any outstanding debt?

Unless this question has a direct impact on the applicant’s capability to perform the job they are being interviewed for, this question stands to reveal the applicant’s credit history, which is protected by the federal discrimination laws, permission by the employer is required if this question is to be asked.

  1. Have you ever been arrested?

Since charges can dropped or lessened and cases can be dismissed without a conviction, it is irrelevant during an interview to ask whether a candidate has ever been arrested.

  1. How often are you deployed for your Army Reserve training exercises?

The candidate’s ability to work is not compromised by their active duty service or membership in the military.

Questions aimed at revealing gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or marital status are illegal since in accordance with the Civil Rights Act, they are discriminating based on these protected categories; citizenship, marital status, veteran status, disability, age, gender, color, race, ethnicity, religion and national origin (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2009).

 

Ten Legal Questions that may be asked during the interview

  • Are you legally authorized to work full-time in the U.S.?

This question directly affects the candidate’s right and ability to work and is therefore necessary to ask in the job interview since the employer is also obligated to comply with country’s laws on who is eligible to work there.

  • Are you willing to relocate?

This is a relevant question since it has a direct impact to the requirements of the job the interview is being conducted.

  • Have you attained the required and legal working age?

This question is safe as it does not seek personal information but aims comply with employment regulations, requiring an employer not to employ minors.

  • Are you able to execute the primary functions of this position without accommodation?

This question seeks any clarification on the whether the candidate may have any reason that may hinder their ability to execute the mandate of the job they are seeking to perform without necessarily asking about any disability they may have (Feldblum, 2000).

  • How many hours can you work?

This direct question genuinely seeks to know how much time the prospective employee is willing to commit to the position for which they are being interviewed.

  • Do you have other commitments that may hinder you from job related travelling?

This question is directly linked to the requirements of the job and does not probe or seek to gather information regarding thecandidate’s personal information such as family or marital status, in order to judge their availability to work.

  • What are the languages you read write and speak fluently?

This question has work-related relevance as it seeks to find out the communication capabilities of the candidate.

  • Have you ever been convicted of a crime?

Depending on the nature and the severity of the crime in relation to how it may affect their work, the employer may use his discretion to use the information to make a prudent hiring decision.

  • During your stint at the military, what kind of work experience, training, or education did you receive?

This is a direct way of finding out what qualifies the candidate for the job without breaching legally protected information.

  • Are you suing any illegal drugs, currently?

This is useful information to the employer as it can be used to determine a suitable candidate for the job.

 

City of Boerne vs Flores – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

City of Boerne vs Flores

The case was between a catholic bishop Flores and City of Boerne after the city authority denied the bishop the building permit to expand his missionary that had outgrown the current Structure. The bishop said that the city authority violated RFRA. The court withheld Boerne decision affirming that RFRA was against the constitution and its provision based on the bishop argument RFRA stands against contributing property law (Tobin, 2008).

The court was right to invalidate the civil right in this case. This is because the provision of any civil right Act should be in line with the constitution. The RFRA was struck by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional employment of congruence’s enforcement power. The enacted of RFRA did not follow the right constitutional procedure and that makes the enacted Act as unconstitutional. Court is guided by the constitution and thus, anything against it is against the law.

Gina like many other acts is employed to challenge the unfairness that has been imposed for a long time to the public. The appropriateness of this decision is also based on GINA purpose. GINA is developed to safeguard the public against unfair discriminations that are not mentioned in the constitution but can interfere with other laws protected by the constitution. Therefore just like RFRA GINA can be challenged by use of a constitution in the court of law (EEOC, 2008).

Kimel vs Florida Board of Regents,

The case was between Kimel Florida Board of regents for discriminating him and others on bases of age. Kimel sued the Board under ADEA act of 1967. However, the court ruled in favor of the board. The judge considered the enactment of ADEA by the congress as intent to subject states to suits for money destruction by private individuals. The court also quoted equal protection jurisdiction, which is in the constitution and which was supposed be observed at all cost (Tobin, 2008).

The court judgment in this case seems to be discriminative. The court seems to be undermining the congress effort of liberating the oppressed in the society. However, the court argument is highly based on the constitution and thus, it is hard to challenge the court. Although there is right for equal protection jurisdiction, the jurisdiction also creates a room for the most oppressed in the society based on gender, age and disabilities and thus, it would not be hard to include the old in the special group.

The appropriateness of this decision is also based on the purpose of GINA, especially it can also be viewed as a way of congress to allow for money destruction by private people. Enactment of GINA can be considered as a way of congress to oppress employers by making them maintain less resourceful works, and it can as well be ruled out under equal protection right jurisdiction (EEOC, 2008).

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama vs Garrett

This was a law suit between two university employees who considered themselves as disabled based on the ADA and discriminated by their employer based on their disabilities. However the suit was dismissed based on the claim that while enacting this act the congress lacked congruency and proportionality needed when it exercises its power under 14th amendment (Tobin, 2008).

The judgment in this case was discriminative. Although discrimination based on ones disability is recognized by the constitution, the judge dismissed the case based on inappropriateness of the congress while enacting the case and when scrutinizing disability. The court seems to disregard public civil rights which are relevant to show its supremacy over the congress.

GINA also seems to be more likely to suffer the same fate. The congruency and appropriateness of the congress while enacting the Act is very likely to be challenged based on other constitution ground that protects the employer and the insurance company from unnecessary liabilities, under equal rights jurisdiction (EEOC, 2008).