Retail giant Target hires thousands of employees each year in Massachusetts and across the country. Not everyone who applies will be eligible for a position, but each candidate should only be eliminated by legal means. To choose the best candidate, Target uses pre-employment testing. Recently the company has been accused of workplace discrimination because of some of the tests that it uses.
Massachusetts readers may be aware that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion as well as other statuses protected under this law. UPS is being accused by some of its workers and applicants that it will not budge when it comes to its appearance policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a workplace discrimination claim on behalf of the affected people.
Many Americans suffer with depression, which can cause them to have a difficult time at work. Massachusetts employees who suffer from a medical illness expect to be treated fairly and informed about all of their options to care for themselves. When employees who suffer from such illnesses suddenly lose their jobs, they may believe that they are the victims of workplace discrimination.
A level of respect should be normal in the workplace, but that is not always the case. Each day, workers in Massachusetts and elsewhere are treated improperly and are the victims of workplace discrimination. A driver for an Orthodox Jewish school, or yeshiva, alleges that he was victimized because of his race.
Becoming pregnant can be an exciting time in a woman's life. To make more money for the new arrival, many women in Massachusetts and elsewhere continue to work during their pregnancies. In this delicate condition, many women may need a reasonable accommodation so that they are able continue to perform their duties until the child is born. Some companies, however, treat pregnant workers differently, causing the women to believe that they are victims of workplace discrimination.
We referenced age discrimination in the workplace in our immediately preceding blog entry, noting therein that, "Neither logically nor ethically does it seem to be the case that an argument can ever be made" promoting employment-related decisions that discriminate against older workers (please see our May 13 post entry ).
Given that, as a recent media article notes, "the ability to get the job done is what really matters," should a worker's age factor at all into an employer's decisions regarding hiring, promotion, compensation and termination-related matters?
A recent article focusing on workplace harassment and discrimination discusses various "do nots" that come centrally into play for any worker contemplating a complaint or legal action in response to the conduct of another worker.
President Barack Obama recently took it upon himself to enact new workplace-related law after successive efforts to do so through Congress via the traditional legislative route failed.
One might reasonably think that, collectively and across most agencies and departments, the federal workplace comprises a relatively better work environment than is the case generally in the private sector, at least from the standpoint of controlling discriminatory behaviors.