U S EMPLOYMENT LAWS Within the field of HRM perhaps no topics have received more attention during the past thirty years than equal employment opportunity EEO and affirmative action AA Equal employment opportunity or the employment of individuals in a fair and nonbiased manner has consumed the attention of the media the courts practitioners and legislators Not surprisingly along with this attention has come a myriad of legal requirements affecting all aspects of the employment relationship Equal employment opportunity The treatment of individuals in all aspect of employment hiring promotion training etc in a fair and nonbiased manner These mandates create legal responsibilities for an organization and each of its managers to comply with various laws and administrative guidelines All functions of HRM should be carried out according to these legal standards When managers ignore the legal aspects of HRM they risk incurring costly and timeconsuming litigation negative public attitudes and damage to organizational morale In one highly publicized case State Farm Insurance Company was sued by a group of women claiming sex bias employment discrimination The court award of 157 million to 800 women is the largest sex based court settlement in U S history Experts agree that this court case with its record award is a dramatic example of what women can accomplish in undoing corporate discrimination Equal employment opportunity is not only a legal topic it is also an emotional issue It concerns all individuals regardless of their sex race religion age national origin color or position in an organization Supervisors should be aware of their personal biases and how these attitudes can influence their dealings with subordinates It should be emphasized that covert as well as blatantly intentional discrimination in employment is illegal In recent decades employers have been compelled to develop employment policies that incorporate different laws executive orders EOs administrative regulations and court decisions case law designed to end job discrimination These legal requirements have shaped employment policies in the USA The process of affirmative action which attempts to correct past practices of discrimination by actively recruiting minority group members greatly employee selection in the USA Historical Perspective of EEO Legislation Equal employment opportunity as a national priority has emerged slowly in the United States Not until the mid 1950s and early 1960s did nondiscriminatory employment become a strong social concern Three factors seem to have influenced the growth of EEO legislation 1 changing attitudes toward employment discrimination 2 published reports highlighting the economic problems of women minorities and older workers and 3 a growing body of disparate laws and government regulations covering discrimination Changing National Values The United States was founded on the principles of individual merit hard work and equality The Constitution grants to all citizens the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness The Fifth Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments expanded these guarantees by providing for due process of law Fifth Amendment outlawing slavery Thirteenth Amendment and guaranteeing equal protection under the law Fourteenth Amendment A central aim of political action has been to establish justice for all people of the nation In spite of these constitutional guarantees employment discrimination has a long history in the United States Organizations that claim to offer fair treatment to employees have openly or covertly engaged in discriminatory practices Well known entities such as American Telephone and Telegraph New York City Shoney s Restaurants and Rockwell International have violated equal employment laws While in theory the American dream of economic prosperity has existed for all citizens in reality many have believed that women and minorities should be excluded from equal consideration Public attitudes changed dramatically with the beginning of the civil rights movement During the late 1950s and early 1960s minorities especially blacks publicized their low economic and occupational position through marches sit ins rallies and clashes with public authorities The low employment status of women also gained recognition during this period Supported by concerned individuals and church and civic leaders the civil rights movement and the women s movement received wide attention through television and print media These movements had a pronounced influence on changing the attitudes of society at large of the business community of civic leaders and of government officials resulting in improvements in the civil rights of all individuals No longer was blatant discrimination to be accepted Economic Disparity The change in government and societal attitudes toward discrimination was further prompted by increasing public awareness of the economic imbalance between nonwhites and whites Even today civil rights activists cite government statistics to emphasize this disparity For example the July 1994 unemployment rate for black males over 20 years old was 10 5 percent compared with 4 9 percent for white males the same age When employed nonwhites tend to hold unskilled or semiskilled jobs characterized by unstable employment low status and low pay In the third quarter of 1994 the median weekly earnings of white males were 534 of black males 388 and of Hispanic males 342 3 The inequities in employment rates and income figures had been consistent in the preceding years as well lending additional support for legislative change Early Legal Developments Since as early as the nineteenth century the public has been aware of discriminatory employment practices in the United States In 1866 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which extended to all persons the right to enjoy full and equal benefits of all laws regardless of race Unfortunately this act had little effect on employment policies since job discrimination was widely practiced and accepted during that period While various EEO policies were instituted in the 1930 60 era these early efforts did little to correct employment discrimination First at both the state and federal levels nondiscrimination laws often failed to give any enforcement power to the agency charged with upholding the law Rather when discrimination was found conciliation was used as a remedy and this often proved to be ineffective Second the laws that were passed