Objectives

After successful completion of this lesson, you will be able to:

• Examine the complexities of race-relations in the workplace.
• Explore how companies manage workforce race-relations for success in the workplace.
• Examine strategies for fighting racism in the workplace.

Commentary - Race Relations in the U.S.

Given the history of race-relations in the U.S. claims of race-based discrimination, including unfair access, privilege, and entitlement remain common occurrences. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate with respect to hiring, discharge, compensation and any decision affecting wages, hours, working conditions on the basis of race or color. The Act protects people of all races and not just people of color, as often perceived. However, claims of discrimination continue to be facts of life in the workplace. Statistical data indicates significant income disparities between whites and racial minority employee performing the same or similar jobs with the same educational attainment. Statistical evidence also confirms that unemployment rates are higher among minority groups than among majority groups. Racial minorities are also notably underrepresented in high executive positions in many companies.

Are these disparities due to discrimination? Disparate treatment claims based upon race may be proven either through direct evidence that an employment decision was made based upon race or color, or it can be proven circumstantially. Direct evidence can include negative racial remarks by the persons making decisions that adversely affect an employee of that particular race, or the evidence can be that a person or persons who are members of a particular race have been treated differently than comparable persons of a different race. Circumstantial evidence (McDonnel Douglas test) can be used when there is no direct evidence of discrimination based upon race, but race discrimination can be inferred. There are four elements that must be circumstantially proven, assuming that the claim is racial discrimination: (1) the employee is a member of the a protected racial group; (2) the employee was meeting the employer's legitimate performance expectations; (3) the employee was nevertheless discharged; and (4) the employer treated similarly situated employees of other races more favorably. If these elements are proven, then an employer must articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the discharge.

Disparate impact discrimination based upon race occurs when seemingly race neutral policies and decisions impact significantly more on members of one racial group than members of (an)other racial group(s).

National Origin

National origin is also protected under Title VII and Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories of discrimination are applicable to claims of discrimination based on national origin. The McDonnel Douglas test for proving disparate treatment cases, where only circumstantial evidence of discriminations is available, also applies to discrimination on the basis of national origin.
Under Title VII employers cannot make their employment decision based upon the applicants' national origin. The number of complaints that continued to be filed (at the rate of several thousand per year) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) shows that organizations face many challenges. The EEOC defines discrimination based upon national origin to include "the denial of equal employment opportunity" based upon the applicant's ancestor's place of origin, or because the applicant has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a national origin group." It also protects those who are not citizens of the US. It does not provide protection based upon citizenship, just national origin.

As stated in the previous lesson, many people do not properly understand affirmative action and, of course, it is controversial and widely viewed negatively. However, four issues need to be clearly understood. First affirmative action is not part of Title VII. Second, affirmative action does not apply to all employees. Third, contrary to widespread misperception, it does not require quotas and preferences but it does permit recruitment of qualified women and minorities into an employer's workforce. It is designed to correct present day inequities and (demonstrated) underrepresentation based upon gender and race. Finally, affirmative action is not the same as valuing diversity or proper managing of diversity in the workplace. Diversity initiatives within organizations are "designed to enhance the individual's awareness, understanding and acceptance of differences between people" (R. Roosevelt Thomas).

Differences do not necessarily imply inequality. How companies manage this diversity, given the fact that their employees are far more diverse than ever before, is linked to strategic goals that strive to maximize the strengths and contribution of all employees. This is different than the goal of affirmative action, which seeks to infuse qualified members of minority groups into an employer's workforce, and/or into particular higher level positions.

As stated above, we know that minority groups, particularly blacks have not been able to achieve high level of management positions and this is because they face many visible and invisible obstacles as they seek to climb the corporate ladder. Clearly, effective diversity training for employers is crucial, but as we are about to see in the next assignment, developing a diversity training plan alone is not sufficient.