Advertisement

Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 487–503 | Cite as

Contemporary Title VII Enforcement: The Song Remains the Same?

  • Arthur Gutman
  • Eric M. DunleavyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) law is constantly evolving and many changes can happen in 50 years. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has always been the most comprehensive law related to workplace discrimination. Like all laws, Title VII has matured over time, including amendments by Congress, refinement by the courts, and creation and updates of regulations by enforcement agencies. However, there are several controversies that have endured during this maturation process, and this article focuses on four of them: (1) adverse impact theory, (2) reverse discrimination, (3) sexual harassment, and (4) retaliation. There are common issues across these controversies. However, for purposes of exposition, each one is treated as a separate entity. For each of the four controversies, we review historical context, recommend compliance strategies and share best EEO practice recommendations for practitioners and employers.

Keywords

Employment law Discrimination Adverse impact Affirmative action Employee selection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lisa Moore and Yesenia Avila for their student review of this manuscript.

References

  1. Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2010). An analysis of two methods for assessing and indexing adverse impact: A disconnect between the academic literature and some practice. In J. L. Outtz (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection (pp. 29–49). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  2. Cascio, W. F., Outtz, J., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (1991). Statistical implications of six methods of test score use in personnel selection. Human Performance, 4, 233–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, D. B., Aamodt, M. G., & Dunleavy, E. M. (2010). A technical advisory committee report on best practices in adverse impact analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Corporate Equality.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, D., & Dunleavy, E. M. (2009). A review of OFCCP enforcement statistics: A call for transparency in OFCCP reporting. Washington, DC: The Center for Corporate Equality.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, M. W., & Morris, S. B. (2008). Testing for adverse impact when sample size is small. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 463–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunleavy, E. M. (2007). What is all the fuss about? The implications of the EEOC deterrence standard after BNSF v. White. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 44(3), 31–39.Google Scholar
  7. Esson, P. L., & Hauenstein, N. M. (2006). Exploring the use of the four-fifths rule and significance tests in adverse impact court case rulings. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  8. Goldstein, H. W., Scherbaum, C. A., & Yusko, K. (2009). Adverse impact and measuring cognitive ability. In J. Outtz’s (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes testing (pp. 95–134). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gutman, A. (2006). Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) v. White: More than meets the eye. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 44(2), 57–67.Google Scholar
  10. Gutman, A. (2007). BNSF v. White: Early returns. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 44(4), 97–110.Google Scholar
  11. Gutman, A., Koppes, L. L., & Vadonovich, S. J. (2010). EEO law and personal practices (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  12. Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (Eds.). (1989). Fairness in employment testing. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  13. McDaniel, M. A., Kepes, & Banks, G. C. (2011). The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4(4), 494–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Murphy, K. R., & Jacobs, R. R. (2012). Using effect size measures to reform the determination of adverse impact in equal employment litigation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0026350.
  15. Reynolds, D. H., & Knapp, D. J. (2012). SIOP as advocate: Developing a platform for action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4(4), 540–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & Switzer, F. S. (2006). Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: Reasons for caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 507–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sackett, P. R., & Wilk, S. L. (1994). Within group norming and other forms of score adjustment in pre-employment testing. American Psychologist, 49, 929–954.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmidt, F. L. (1991). Why all banding procedures are logically flawed. Human Performance, 4, 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siskin, B. R., & Trippi, J. (2005). Statistical issues in litigation. In F. J. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives (pp. 132–166). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Yusko, K. P., & Goldstein, H. W. (2008). Siena reasoning test. Princeton, NJ: Siena Consulting.Google Scholar
  21. Zedeck, S. (2010). Adverse impact: History and evolution. In J. L. Outtz (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes staffing (pp. 3–27). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

  1. Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975) 422 US 405.Google Scholar
  2. Adarand v. Pena (1995) 151 US 200.Google Scholar
  3. Adarand v. Slater (2000) 228 F.3d 1147.Google Scholar
  4. Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California (2000) 231 F.3d 572.Google Scholar
  5. Barnes v Train (D.D.C 1974) 13 FEP Cases.Google Scholar
  6. Baty v. Willamette Indus., Inc. (CA10 1999) 172 F.3d 1232.Google Scholar
  7. Berry v. Stevinson Chevrolet (1996) 74 F.3d 980.Google Scholar
  8. Bew v. City of Chicago (2001) 252 F.3d 891.Google Scholar
  9. Briscoe v. New Haven (2011) 654 F.3d 200.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks v. City of San Mateo (2000) 229 F.3d 917.Google Scholar
  11. Brunet v. City of Columbus (CA6, 1995) 58 F.2d 251.Google Scholar
  12. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company v. White (2006) 548 US 53.Google Scholar
  13. Bundy v. Jackson (CA DC 1981) 641 F.2d 934.Google Scholar
  14. CBOCS West v. Humphries (2008) 553 US 442.Google Scholar
  15. Castaneda v. Partida (1977) 430 US 482.Google Scholar
  16. City of Richmond v. Croson (1989) 488 US 469.Google Scholar
  17. Coates v. Sundor Brands, Inc. (CA11 1998) 160 F.3d 688.Google Scholar
  18. Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough County (CA11 1991) 908 F.2d 908.Google Scholar
  19. Corne v. Bausch & Lomb (D. Ariz. 1975) 390 F. Supp 161.Google Scholar
  20. Crawford v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville (2009) 129 S. Ct. 846.Google Scholar
  21. Detroit Police Officers Association v. Young (1979) 608 F. 2d 671.Google Scholar
  22. Doe v. City of Belleville (CA7 1997) 119 F.3d 563.Google Scholar
  23. Ellison v. Brady (CA9 1991) 924 F.2d 872.Google Scholar
  24. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) 139 LED 2d 867 (No. 97-282).Google Scholar
  25. Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts (1984) 467 U.S. 561.Google Scholar
  26. Fogleman v. Mercy Hospital (2002) 283 F. 3d 561.Google Scholar
  27. Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America (CA5 1994) 28 F.3d 446.Google Scholar
  28. Gentry v. Export Packaging Co. (CA7 2001) 238 F.3d 842.Google Scholar
  29. Gillespie v. State of Wisconsin (CA7 1985) 771 F.2d 1035.Google Scholar
  30. Gomez-Perez v. Potter (2008) 128 S. Ct. 1931.Google Scholar
  31. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) 539 U.S. 244.Google Scholar
  32. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) 401 US 424.Google Scholar
  33. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) 539 US 306.Google Scholar
  34. Guardians of NY v. Civil Service Commission (CA2 1980) 630 F.2d 79.Google Scholar
  35. Gulino v. New York State Education Department (2006) 460 F.3d 361.Google Scholar
  36. Harris v. Forklift (1993) 510 US 17.Google Scholar
  37. Hayden v. Nassau County (CA2 1999) 180 F.3d 42.Google Scholar
  38. Hazelwood School District v United States (1977) 433 US 299.Google Scholar
  39. Herrnreiter v. Chicago Housing Authority (CA7 2002) 315 F. 3d 742.Google Scholar
  40. Henson v. City of Dundee (CA11 1982) 682 F. 2d 897.Google Scholar
  41. Holt v. JTM Industries (1996) 105 F. 3d 658.Google Scholar
  42. Int. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Mississippi P&L (2006) 442 F.3d 313.Google Scholar
  43. Hopwood v. Texas (CA5 1996) 78F.3d 932.Google Scholar
  44. Isabel v. City of Memphis (CA6 2005) 404 F.3d 404.Google Scholar
  45. Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) 544 US 167.Google Scholar
  46. Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University of Georgia (CA11 2001) 263 F. 3d 1234.Google Scholar
  47. Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, Ca. (1987) 480 US 616.Google Scholar
  48. Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth. (SEPTA) (1999) 181 F.3d 478.Google Scholar
  49. McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2005) 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755.Google Scholar
  50. McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (CA4 1996) 72 F.3d 1191.Google Scholar
  51. Meritor v. Vinson (1986) 477 US 57.Google Scholar
  52. Miller v. Bank of America (N.D. Cal 1976) 418 F. Supp 233.Google Scholar
  53. Moore v. City of Philadelphia (CA3 2006) 461 F. 3d 331.Google Scholar
  54. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) 523 US 75.Google Scholar
  55. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. (2007) 127 S. Ct. 2738.Google Scholar
  56. Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004) 542 US 129***.Google Scholar
  57. Petit v. City of Chicago (CA7 2003) 352 F. 3d 1111.Google Scholar
  58. Pinero v. Specialty Restaurants Corp. (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 635.Google Scholar
  59. Police Officers for Equal Rights v. City of Columbus (CA6 1990) 916 F.2d 1092.Google Scholar
  60. Rabidue v. Osceola (CA6 1986) 805 F.2d 611.Google Scholar
  61. Ray v. Henderson (CA9 2000) 217 F.3d 1234.Google Scholar
  62. Reed v MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc. (CA1 2003) 333 F. 3d 27.Google Scholar
  63. Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) 438 US 265.Google Scholar
  64. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel (CA9 2001) 243 F.3d 1206.Google Scholar
  65. Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) 129 S. Ct. 2658.Google Scholar
  66. Robinson v. Shell Oil (1997) 519 US 337.Google Scholar
  67. Robinson v Sappington (CA7 2003) 351 F. 3d 317.Google Scholar
  68. Rochon v. Gonzales (CA DC 2006) 438 F. 3d 1211.Google Scholar
  69. Shaw v. AutoZone, Inc. (CA7 1999) 180 F.3d 806.Google Scholar
  70. Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. (1969) 396 US 299.Google Scholar
  71. Talbert v. City of Richmond (CA4 1981) 648 F. 2d 925.Google Scholar
  72. Taxman v. Piscataway (CA3 1996) 91 F.3d 1547.Google Scholar
  73. Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP (2011). 131 S.Ct. 863 (2011).Google Scholar
  74. Tompkins v. Public Service Electric & Gas (D.N.J. 1976) 422 F. Supp 553.Google Scholar
  75. United States v. Paradise (1987) 480 US 149.Google Scholar
  76. United Steelworkers etc. v. Weber (1979) 443 US 193.Google Scholar
  77. Waisome v. Port Authority (948 F.2d 1370, 1376, 2d Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
  78. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989) 490 US 642.Google Scholar
  79. Wallace v. Coastal International Security Inc. (D.C. Cir 2002) 275 F.3d 1119.Google Scholar
  80. Wal-Mart v. Dukes 131 S. Ct. 2541; 180 L. Ed. 2d 374.Google Scholar
  81. Washington v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue (CA7 2005) 420 F. 3d 658.Google Scholar
  82. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust 487 US 977 (1988).Google Scholar
  83. Washington (Mayor, DC) v. Davis (1976) 426 US 229.Google Scholar
  84. Williams v. Ford Motor Company (1999) 187 F.3d 533.Google Scholar
  85. Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986) 476 US 267.Google Scholar
  86. Zamora v. City of Houston (2011) 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9827.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA
  2. 2.DCI Consulting Group Inc.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations