Racial discrimination has always been one of the most serious and common issues in the workplaces of the United States as well as all other multi-national countries. The concerns of this kind are not the most frequently found problems of the business organizations, but they still happen quite a lot.
How Adverse Impact Applies to the Case
In the case of Ruth Whitman, an employee of African descent, the woman maintains that she has become a victim of race-based discrimination in the workplace. Whitman was fired from her job for regular absenteeism, and she claims that another employee who had the same rate of absences and was white remained to work. Besides, Whitman’s complaint includes the accusation of the uneven allocation of workloads between her and her colleagues of white origin. This is the case of adverse impact if the claims of Whitman are the truth. Adverse impact is defined as “a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion or other employment decision which works to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex or ethnic group” (About Adverse Impact, n. d.). Whitman also points out that her complaints about uneven workloads and unfair attitudes towards her were ignored by her superior which is a violation of the manager who is responsible for listening and responding to the complaints from the workers and, in some cases, even file a report (Dealing with Discrimination: Tips for Employees, 2015).
The Documents the Bank Needs to Provide
The bank where Whitman is employed claims that the workloads are randomly assigned, and the employees in training have fewer responsibilities. As for Whitman’s absenteeism, the employers reported that it was worse than that of all other workers and served as the reason for the employment termination. To prove their claims and to protect themselves in this situation, the bank is to provide the reports about the absenteeism rates for all the employees and prove that Whitman’s are the worst. Besides, the bank is to prove the random allocation of workloads by showing the smaller workloads assigned to some other black employees, as well as larger ones assigned to white workers. Moreover, since Whitman is referring to a particular white employee with the same absenteeism rates and easier work, the bank is to focus on providing the information about that person’s performance to demonstrate whether or not Whitman is right. For example, the bank may reveal a document that states that this worker is in training, and this is why their workloads are smaller.
The Decision of the EEOC District Director
As the EEOC District Director, I would not be able to make any decision without a proper investigation and listening to the arguments of both sides – Whitman and the bank. In case if the bank provides proofs that Whitman was treated fairly, the accusations of racial discrimination have to be removed. If the bank fails to demonstrate such documents, the organization would have to apologize to Whitman and accept her back to work since her firing would be judged as discriminative.
Conclusion
In other words, the bank needs to show that the employee was fired due to a valid reason that is unrelated to her racial background and color. Otherwise, the actions of this organization will be considered to be adverse impact as even a neutral practice that results in discriminative consequences has to be treated as such (Adverse Impact Law & Legal Definition, 2015).
Reference List
About Adverse Impact. (n. d.).