Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others. Title VII prohibits employers from treating applicants or employees differently because of their membership in a protected class.
Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ cannot be a cost justification in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must balance privacy and safety concerns with the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]
His theory is based on the assumption that in order to survive in the existence of competitive markets, employers cannot discriminate in the long run. Strongly believing in the perfect functioning of markets without government or trade union intervention, it was claimed that employer discrimination declines in the long run without political ...
Getty Images Suzanne Lucas, better known as the Evil HR Lady (she's very nice and not evil at all), did an interesting article about what employers are saying about former employees in references ...
[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question. [3] This is the "business necessity" defense. [1]
The employers claim it has to do with insurance issues but where I live now no employer gives employees insurance as most of the jobs are either part time or seasonal and not even part time when ...
Alaska Alaska Constitution, Article I, §3 (1972, protecting equality on the basis of "race, color, creed, sex or national origin") Anti-Discrimination Act of 1945
Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States has been illegal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [citation needed] Employers retain the right to lawfully consider an applicant's or employee's criminal conviction(s) for employment purposes e.g., hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties.