No description available.

No description available.

Legislation, court decisions, and the changing political and social climate provide evidence of the importance of the outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion. These selection procedures are being challenged by more informed employees and, in many cases, result in costly litigation. Thus, organizations must be aware of the continuing developments in employment law especially as found in court decisions and related legislation. This study investigates judicial and EEOC decisions in discrimination cases to provide answers to these questions: Are organizations aware of the outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion? Are organizations aware of what constitutes a discriminatory practice in the selection of employees for transfer, training and development, and promotion? Does management recognize and follow nondiscriminatory procedures in selecting personnel for transfer, training and development, and promotion? The purposes of the study are 1. To analyze outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion; 2. To develop a model set of guidelines to aid organizations in developing nondiscriminatory procedures for use in selecting employees for transfer, training and development, and promotion. This study concludes that many employers are aware of the outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion. Many employers are also aware of what constitutes a discriminatory practice in the selection of employees for some employment advantage. However, management does not always recognize and follow nondiscriminatory procedures when selecting employees for transfer, training and development, and promotion. The number of cases in which selection procedures were found discriminatory supports this conclusion.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A few months after having enacted a criminal statute creating the general offence of sexual harassment, the French Parliament enacted the Statute n° 92-1179 "relative a l'abus d'autorite en matiere sexuelle dans les relations de travail". In this statute, as in the criminal statute, the French legislator considers sexual harassment in a peculiar way, and departs from the North-American position on three points: / First, while American law and Canadian law understand clearly sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination, the French approach is more ambiguous. It appears that the French legislator understands sexual harassment more as an infringement to freedom than a form of sex discrimination. / Second, the French legislator has defined sexual harassment in a more restrictive way than in North America. While American law and Canadian law prohibit hostile harassment and sexual harassment by colleagues, these forms of sexual harassment are not prohibited in French law. Finally, on the question of the employer's liability, the French approach is more "timid" than in American law and in Canadian law. / The French legislator has justified its more restrictive approach to the problem of sexual harassment in comparison with the North-American position by two arguments: the fear of the "American 'drift'" and the peculiarity of the relationships between women and men in France. However, it is argued that the choice of the French legislator is not convenient because it leaves a significant number of victims outside the scope of the law, and is not clear enough on the employer's obligations. Furthermore, it is maintained that both arguments of the legislator are more caricatural than real.

Thesis (LLM (Mercantile Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2005. / The concept of affirmative action, in contrast to discrimination, does not have a universal uniform meaning. On the one hand affirmative action can be seen as an attempt to promote equal opportunities for individuals or groups previously disadvantaged by discrimination. On the other hand, its application is controversial when black people, women and disabled people are given preference, for example, when decisions are made that preclude the appointment of better-qualified candidates. Affirmative action therefore has pros and cons, depending on the approach adopted. In South Africa affirmative action, as defined in s 15 of Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA), is seen as a measure that ensures equal employment opportunities and equitable representation of suitably qualified people from designated groups. Affirmative action thus enjoys legislative recognition and is judicially developed by the courts. Nonetheless the concept is problematic. A specific concern is the fact that the meaning of affirmative action is even more elusive when the conceptual relationship to discrimination and equality is examined in an effort to identify its theoretical foundation. Affirmative action is aimed at pursuing working conditions that promote a real, and not just theoretical, realisation of rights. It focuses on addressing the burden of discrimination, which is still borne by certain groups in society. In Harmse v City of Cape Town [2203] 6 BLLR 557 (LC), the court found that the broader idea of constitutional equality implies that the elimination of unfair discrimination includes affirmative action. The court based its reasoning on s 9(2) of the equality clause of the Constitution, wherein provision is made for measures, such as affirmative action, that are “designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination…” In Dudley v City of Cape Town [2004] 5 BLLR 413 (LC) the court found that the EEA distinguishes between the prohibition of unfair discrimination and affirmative action, as contained in chapters II and III of the Act, regarding approach, aim and application. This however does not imply that the two concepts are in no way connected. Another area of concern relates to doubts surrounding the effectiveness of affirmative action. The gender gap in the workplace becomes apparent when the labour market composition is taken into consideration. This emphasises the fact that affirmative action is not accomplishing sufficient transformation to further equality in the workplace. The origin of the problem lies in the fact that the impact of affirmative action depends on the approach to equality (be it formal equality, equality of opportunities or substantive equality) that it is designed to promote. Another affirmative action dilemma is the problem of enforcement of measures of this nature. Other alternatives, such as diversity management where both the employer and the employees benefit, should possibly be considered as a method of effectively empowering women to ensure that they can compete successfully with men in the labour market. Diversity management ultimately appears to have a social, as well as an economic advantage in the development of equitable representation of disadvantaged groups in the labour market.

Changes in income and representation in managerial occupations is explored separately for women and men among the United States' eight largest race/ethnic minority groups for each decennial census of 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990 to determine how much change has occurred between 1960 and 1990 in race and ethnic inequality, and in gender inequality within each race/ethnic group. Insights from gender theory are applied to minority group inequality and insights from minority group theory are applied to gender inequality with some degree of success. Economic change is uneven among the groups, with the largest specific change being the movement of women into managerial jobs. A clear pattern also emerged indicating that the higher the average representation of a minority group in managerial jobs, the greater the gap between women and men. The income of all persons with income, however, did not exhibit such a clear pattern across the different groups.

Sung, Suet Yen. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leave 50). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Abstract --- p.ii / Acknowledgements --- p.iii / Contents --- p.iv / Chapter 1 --- Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter 2 --- Experimental Design --- p.6 / Chapter 2.1 --- Creating resumes --- p.6 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Addresses --- p.6 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- Occupations selection --- p.7 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- Chosen names --- p.7 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- Others --- p.8 / Chapter 2.2 --- Partition of the experiment --- p.9 / Chapter 2.3 --- Measuring Responses --- p.10 / Chapter 2.4 --- Responding to Ads --- p.11 / Chapter 3 --- Results --- p.12 / Chapter 3.1 --- Is there any discrimination against the poor applicants? --- p.12 / Chapter 3.2 --- Are Hong Kong residents more employable than the mainlanders? --- p.25 / Chapter 4 --- Discussion and Conclusion --- p.41 / Chapter 4.1 --- Representative of Names and Residences --- p.41 / Chapter 4.2 --- Limitation on job-searching --- p.42 / Chapter 4.3 --- Relationship between results and job nature --- p.44 / Chapter 4.4 --- Conclusion --- p.47 / A Appendix --- p.48 / References --- p.49