Performance Impact Project

EEO Officer Response

This responds to the charge of discrimination filed by Carlos against the company Foxtrots Pharmaceuticals in which Charging Party alleges he was not employed after application because of Hispanic heritage. The company vehemently denies the charge. As explained in more detail below, Charging Party discrimination complaint is based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Carlos believes his race is the reason for not being hired by Foxtrots. Carlos' cousin, Juanita (a clerk for Foxtrots), told Carlos that none of the new pharmacists hired by Foxtrots are of Hispanic origin, nor does she feel that they as qualified for the position as Carlos is.

The EEOC investigation would entail ensuring that Foxtrot's maintains a hiring process that delivers strong and non-discriminatory results. In this process, they would investigate the persons involved as well as any documentation regarding the hiring process. Foxtrots' legal defense in this matter is that they have maintained a workforce of diverse persons. Foxtrot's position is that six pharmacist candidates who were hired had prior work experience as pharmacists with other pharmacies, and Foxtrots' overall statistics show the Hispanic proportion of its workforce to be 2% above the local availability percentages based upon the last census data. The plaintiff's application was rejected based on his qualifications and the availability of persons who have greater qualification than his, which is lawfully abdicable.

Investigation Needs of EEO Officer on Behalf of Foxtrots

Responding to Carlos' complaint against Foxtrots, the EEO Officer would first contact the Human Resources Representative at the Foxtrots store where Carlos was interviewed. The EEO Officer would also request to see if the same questions were used for every applicant interview for the position of Pharmacist 1; and if so, to have that list of questions available for review. The EEO Officer would also request to see the rйsumйs and job applications of all applicants for the position, along with any tests and their results (if any) which might have been performed as part of the selection process.

The EEO Officer will also request to see Foxtrots EEO-1 report, which will document what percentage of minorities are represented by the current selection of employees in relation to the other drug companies in the same area.

The EEO Officer will read Foxtrot's written policies on Equal Employment Opportunity to define if a policy exists that is: (a) Legally acceptable (b) EEOC compliant and (c) Understood by employees of Foxtrot's.

To complete the investigation into the claim, the EEO Officer should also request to speak to the employees who performed the interviews for the position as well as the Human Resources Manager. The EEO Officer would be interested in any recollections of the applicant by each person involved in the interviewing process, and his or her assessment of Carlos' skills towards the position applied for.

Parameters for Investigative Response on Behalf of Foxtrot's

Foxtrots must establish a pattern of non-discriminatory activity. Accordingly, Foxtrots should first receive legal council during its investigation. Holland and Knight, a diversity counseling service, recommends the following actions, stating the importance of the legal advice of council. It is also important to initiate an investigation into the hiring process to ensure that the process is compliant with civil rights laws and maintains a high standard of ethical development. Holland (2005) maintains the following key points in dealing with civil rights laws and possible discrimination within the facility:

* Employers need to devote sufficient time and resources to make diversity programs effective in order to avoid problems resulting from frustration from heightened expectations.

* Treating class certification, or other litigation strategies, as the only important issue in an employment discrimination case is short-sighted.

* Successful regulatory audits may not be accepted as evidence of the absence of discrimination, nor should they be relied upon as a measure of diversity success.

* Even if employers overcome legal hurdles, i.e., class certification, if allegations of discrimination are not properly addressed, employee complaints will continue, with potentially more serious allegations and involving more employees.

* Employers can identify and evaluate the risks of litigation by having counsel conduct a Legal Vulnerability Assessment of the workplace.

* Companies can minimize their employment litigation risks by responding positively and proactively to allegations of workplace discrimination, especially from long-standing, responsible employees.