Discussion Post Assignments | Online Homework Help

reply to the students response in 150 words and provide 1 reference

question

Anne is an accountant at a large Accounting Firm. She applied for Partner, but was denied. In their report, the all-male Partnership Review Committee stated that Anne would have a better chance at making Partner if she wore makeup, jewelry, and acted more femininely. Over the past 10 years with the Firm, Anne has received excellent performance evaluations and recently secured a $10M client for the Firm

students response

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on an individual’s race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. This law was created by the federal government to protect both men and women from gender discrimination. Another form of discrimination within the workplace is invidious discrimination; this is a type of discrimination that is offensive or objectionable, especially because it involves prejudice or stereotyping. In the case involving Anne and her employment at the accounting firm, there is definitive evidence of sex/gender discrimination, stereotype, and prejudice.

In the case regarding Anne and her employment at the accounting firm, she was discriminated based on her sex, gender and additionally was stereotyped by her managers when she applied for a partner position within her company.

In her statement that she filed with the human resources department, Anne claimed that when she applied for the partner position, she faced an all-male review panel. During her interview, Anne stated that the committee said she would have had a better chance at making partner if she wore makeup, jewelry, and acted more femininely. To this, Anne replied that she had been working at the company for the past ten years; and during this time, she had received excellent performance evaluations and recently secured a $10M client for the Firm. Unfortunately, she was still denied the position.

The Price Waterhouse v. Watkins case 490 U.S. 228 (1989) is a case similar to the predicament that Anne is facing. In the Price Waterhouse v. Watkins case, Anne Hopkins was a successful and driven employee that in two short years at her accounting firm, had already contracted a 25-million-dollar contract with the Department of state. However, she was regarded by her fellow employees as “macho”; another’s suggested that she “overcompensated for being a woman”; a third employee advised her to take “a course at charm school.” Several partners criticized her because of her use of profanity.

To correct these deficiencies within this company, it is recommended that the management and human resources department hold a stand-down training with all of its employees on professional etiquette within the workplace. Additionally, training topics on gender and sex discrimination laws and the consequences of violating these rules will be covered during this training session. At the end of the training session, all employees will sign professional etiquette contract stating that if any of these rules are broken during their period of employment that an immediate termination of employment will be evoked.

REFERENCE

Bennett-Alexander, D. & Hatman, L.P. (2019) Employment Law for Business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education