Overview: Title VII and many state laws not only prohibit race discrimination but also prohibit color discrimination. Thus, an individual may not be discriminated against based on his or her race or the color of his or her skin complexion.
Race discrimination often surfaces when an individual receives unfair treatment based on race or color. However, it also arises in situations in which a facially neutral employment policy has a negative impact on individuals of a certain race, see disparate impact.
Therefore an employer should avoid hiring procedures and other employment tests that may have a disparate impact based on race. Further, an employer should develop a workplace culture of diversity, inclusion and respect where racial slurs and stereotypes will not be tolerated.
Trends: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has instituted the E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism And Colorismfrom Employment) in order to amplify its efforts to rid the workplace of race and color discrimination.
In doing so, the EEOC will identify issues, criteria and barriers contributing to race and color discrimination, investigate strategies to improve the litigation of race and color discrimination claims, and increase public awareness of race and color discrimination in employment. Additionally, the EEOC has identified targeting recruiting and hiring practices that discriminate against racial groups as one of its priorities in its Strategic Enforcement Plan.
Further, employers should be careful about using any preemployment screenings and background checks that may have a disparate impact and discrimination against individuals of a certain race such as the use of arrest and conviction records, residency requirements, or unemployment status.
Employers should also be aware of reverse race discrimination claims.
Author: Beth P. Zoller, JD, Legal Editor
XpertHR's Financial Services Resource Center for HR helps financial services employers handle their most challenging employment issues by bringing relevant resources together in one place for easy access.
In a wide-ranging XpertHR podcast, EEOC General Counsel David Lopez discusses a host of key employment law issues, including notable litigation trends affecting the Commission. Lopez also talks about the biggest mistakes he sees employers making.
XpertHR examines significant 2012 Supreme Court rulings, including the blockbuster ruling on the Affordable Care Act.
In Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (2006), the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the use of otherwise innocent words, standing alone, can be discriminatory based on the context in which they are used.
Employment law is moving fast and employers that are not proactive may find themselves lost in a dust of unwinnable lawsuits and grave compliance issues. To prevent that, employers should be proactive, including maintaining an active watch list following trends in state and federal employment law. Increased employment litigation, mandatory E-Verify laws, criminal history background checks, social media and paid sick leave are a few items that have earned a spot at the top of employers' 2012 watch list.
XpertHR is on track to have all 50 states and the District of Columbia by the end of July. We are completing states on a rolling basis until then and are now up to 28 "states" with the completion of Mississippi this week.
This How To details the steps a prudent employer should take to handle an employee making racist comments.
This podcast features EEOC Asst. Gen. Counsel Carol Miaskoff, plus a panel discussion about employer use of arrest and conviction records with Boston employment attorneys Sheryl Eisenberg of Hirsch, Roberts Weinstein and Peter Mee of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
In Ellis v. United Parcel Service, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed whether UPS discriminated against a black employee by terminating him when the employee was involved in an interracial relationship with another employee that violated UPS's nonfraternization policy.