Workplace Discrimination

Workplace Discrimination

June 21, 2015

Introduction

     The world is one founded on discrimination. This paper will touch on the Anderson v. City and County of San Francisco. This is a case in which deputies claim discrimination after they were hired. Additionally, it will touch on Title VII a well as the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQ). Discrimination has no place in the workplace when individuals are qualified to do the job. This paper will run through some of those protections.

Workplace Discrimination

     The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was presented with a complex case in which sheriff’s deputies, for the City and County of San Francisco, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sex. The claim further states that implementing a policy that prohibited male deputies from supervising female inmates in single-sex housing units at jails (Liebman, 2014). The females claim that this was discrimination based on sex as it restricts certain positions to members of one sex, but not the other.

     The City and County of San Francisco took the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) in that the policy was implemented to protect female inmates from sexual misconduct, manipulation of male deputies by female inmates, as well as protecting privacy. In order for this employer to justify this type of discrimination under the BFOQ, it had to prove that this discrimination is reasonably necessary and that [sex] is a legitimate proxy for the qualification because (a) it has a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all [men] lack the qualification, or . . . (b) it is impossible or highly impractical to insure by individual testing that its employees will have the necessary qualifications for the job (Liebman, 2014).

     In this particular case, the court claimed that proving the elements of BFOQ is extremely difficult. Therefore the city was unable to bear the burden of proving the elements of this claim. It also goes on to state that this issue, reversed, would exclude females from working in male housing units as males are unfit to work in female housing units. The court also goes on to state that issues regarding privacy interests were unable to be addressed by other policies, such as privacy screens. Additionally, the court ruled that they were unable to determine whether or not the presence of male employees negatively impacted the rehabilitation of female inmates (Kienbaum, 2014).

Title VII

     One of the most important issues covered by Title VII is the fact that employers are not able to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Some of the protections of discrimination include a refusal to hire, discipline, fire, deny training, fail to promote, pay less or demote, or harassment (Thomson Reuters, 2014).

     The basis of this law is to protect individuals from discrimination and makes the attempt to create an equal opportunity workplace. For an employer to find a loophole in this, due to the size of the company, is not unfair, but a means of being able to discriminate. As the law exempts small businesses with few employees opens doors for lawsuits and loopholes for allowing discrimination. In one case, in 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court applied Title VII to a restaurant with less than 15 employees (The HR Specialist, 2007).