Please enumerate your answers.
Chapter Nine ISBN: 9780470401330
After reading chapter nine and watching the chapter nine/ten powerpoint presentation, answer the following questions:
Part A: PepsiCo Survey Evaluation
1. What is your viewpoint on PepsiCo’s D & I Survey?
2. How does it relates to their D & I goals?
3. What did you think about the components included? Be specific don’t just say they were okay.
4. How is this survey utilized in their D & I initiatives?
Part B:
1. Why would it be important to have senior leadership support in D & I (Diversity & Inclusion) goals and activities?
2. How could diversity training help to achieve the outcomes from table 9.2? Who would need to be trained?
3. Choose two of the companies beginning on powerpoint slides 8 through 13. The powerpoint slide seven states to do the following for your two companies:
4.
A. State where you think the company is at when the lawsuit occurred: exclusion, symbolic inclusion, prescribed inclusion, inclusion—see chapter nine/ten in book for definition.
B. Where do you think they are today?
4. Read article in slide 17 (by double clicking the link or right clicking it) titled: headscarf,
A. What is your opinion?
B. Do you think it is easy to fight discrimination against large companies? Why or Why not?
If the link does not work, go to google chrome and the type the following: houston chronicle Muslim woman denied job over head scarf wins in Supreme Court
Mgmt 3700 chapters 9 & 10
Inclusive leadership requires an understanding of the civil rights laws that govern the workplace.
Lawsuits
Let’s apply our knowledge of od development model of inclusion
Federal laws prohibiting job discrimnation
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments; Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government;
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and
The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.
Directions:
State where you think the company is at when the lawsuit occurred: exclusion, symbolic inclusion, prescribed inclusion, inclusion.
Where do you think they are today?
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013 taken from: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/07/08/top-10-most-expensive-discrimination-settlements-o?page=4
$160 million – McReynolds, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co.
The largest settlement of 2013 has its roots eight years earlier, when in 2005, broker George McReynolds accused Merrill Lynch & Co. of giving white brokers more lucrative accounts while denying black employees equal pay and career advancement opportunities. McReynolds filed a lawsuit on behalf of 700 black brokers who worked for Merrill. Before the suit was settled out of court in August, it had seen two appeals in the Supreme Court and survived Merrill Lynch’s acquisition by Bank of America in 2009.
$39 million – Calibuso, et al. v. Bank Of America
In 2010, a group of female advisors lead by Judy Calibuso at the newly acquired Merrill Lynch unit of Bank of America (BoA) filed suit for what they alleged was systematic discrimination. The plaintiff’s contended that policies and practices at their workplaces were designed to pass over women for business opportunities and advancements. In addition to the money paid to the class, BoA was also ordered to have its programs reviewed by an independent consultant for three years. The settlement was finalized in December.
Some of most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$8 million – Ellis, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
A testament to the length of time it can take for a class action lawsuit to work itself from certification to resolution, Costco’s big settlement case last year took over a decade to complete. An initial complaint about the way Costco selected potential managers and allegedly discouraged females from applying was filed in 2002, the actual suit was filed in 2004, and the class was not certified until September 2012. In December, the settlement, which was intended for those who had been affected by the alleged discriminatory practices was finalized. Costco also promised to reform its internal hiring process.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$7.5 million – Cogdell, et al. v. The Wet Seal Inc
Following an EEOC investigation in 2012, which found evidence that executive management had sought to maintain the “the Armani look” (code for blonde and blue-eyed) for its store, the company quickly opted to settle in the class action discrimination case. The lawsuit alleged that the company had gone out of its way to fire black store managers in an attempt to maintain that image. The company called the settlement a “no fault resolution” but promised to evaluate it position as a result.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$4.5 million – Hubbard, et al. v. U.S. Postal Service
Disability discrimination is a growing area of litigation risk, and perhaps as a sign of the times this case revolved around the accommodations afforded to deaf and hard-of-hearing workers of the United States Postal Service. The suit alleged that workers with hearing problems were not provided with technologies and services that would have helped them perform their duties, and that they were frequently subject to scrutiny from other workers at the postal service. The case was settled in July of 2013.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$3.7 million – Vasich, et al. v. City Of Chicago
Firefighters need to be physically fit to do their jobs, however this lawsuit alleged that the test was designed more as an opportunity for the Chicago Fire Department to discourage potential female firefighters rather than find new recruits. The suit alleged that the test discriminated against women and was unlawful because it was not related to job performance or predictive of who would succeed as a firefighter. The city settled with the class in December after two years in court.
$3.1 million – Easterling, et al. v. State Of Connecticut, Department Of Correction
Similar to the Chicago case, this suit alleged that the a physical fitness test composed of a 1.5 mile run required by the Connecticut Department of Corrections was not a business need, and that it discriminated against female candidates. As a result over 200 women who applied for a Correction Officer position in 2004 o4 2006, were certified for the class. The settlement was finalized in July.
Some of the most expensive discrimination settlements of 2013
$1.3 million – Monroe, et al. v. City Of New York
Another lawsuit involving allegations of sexual discrimination against a fire department, in 2006 five ranking female officers alleged that they had been passed over for advancement because they were women. Settled in June, the women alleged that despite their outstanding service records they lost promotions to other less qualified candidates that were men. They also accused the Fire Department of New York of posting jobs where they were not widely available for internal candidates to see, discouraging application.
$1 million – Bradley v. City Of Richmond
Brought by eight of African-American pipefitters employed by the City of Richmond, Va., this suit contended that the public utilities department had categorically discriminated, harassed and retaliated against the workers. An investigation by the human resources department released five months later confirmed the employees had been subject to open use of racial epithets by white employees and supervisors, as well as favoritism toward whites in hiring and promotion. The settlement was completed in July.
Questions:
Were these companies diverse?
Were they inclusive?
Why did it take so long for some of the companies lawsuits?
What does an inclusive culture have to do with the cases?
Does sales and marketing strategies have to comply with diversity?
Can businesses discriminate against individuals under the auspice of a marketing strategy or a particular ‘look.’
Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch made headlines in 2003 after it was sued for discriminating against African Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos. In particular, Latinos and Asians accused the company of steering them to jobs in the stock room rather than on the sales floor because Abercrombie & Fitch wanted to be represented by workers who looked “classically American.”
A & F
Minority employees also complained that they’d been fired and replaced by white workers. A&F ended up settling the lawsuit in 2004 for $50 million.
Do you think this moved them more toward inclusion?
A & F
Headscarf
Last words to ponder…..
Diversity is not enough, organizations must be inclusive
The retail industry and other industries need to know that businesses cannot discriminate against individuals under the auspice of a marketing strategy or a particular ‘look.’ Race, religion and sex discrimination in employment are unlawful.”