Race/Ethnicity/Color Discrimination - What Supervisors Need to Know
Excerpts taken from The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "Training and Technical Assistance Program 2002" and online at http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Q & A: Race/Ethnicity/Color - What Practices Are Discriminatory?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
It is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
Key Points to Remember
Facts About Race/Ethnicity/Color Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color as well as national origin, sex, or religion.
It is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of his/her race or color in regard to hiring, termination, promotion, compensation, job training, or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment. Title VII also prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes an assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals of certain racial groups. Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination and neutral job policies that disproportionately exclude minorities and that are not job related.
Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied because of marriage to or association with an individual or a different race; membership in or association with ethnic based organizations or groups; or attendance or participation in schools or places of worship generally associated with certain minority groups.
Race-Related Characteristics and Conditions
Discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features violates Title VII, even though not all members of the race share the same characteristic.
Title VII also prohibits discrimination on the basis of a condition which predominately affects one race unless the practice is job related and consistent with business necessity. For example, since sickle cell anemia predominately occurs in African-Americans, a policy which excludes individuals with sickle cell anemia must be job related and consistent with business necessity. Similarly, a "no-beard" employment policy may discriminate against African-American men who have a predisposition to pseudofolliculitis barbae (severe shaving bumps) unless the policy is job related and consistent with business necessity.
Harassment on the basis of race and/or color violates Title VII. Ethnic slurs, racial "jokes", offensive or derogatory comments, or other verbal or physical conduct based on an individual's race/color constitutes unlawful harassment if the conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, or interferes with the individual's work performance.
Segregation and Classification of Employees
Title VII is violated where minority employees are segregated by physically isolating them from other employees or from customer contact. Title VII also prohibits assigning primarily minorities to predominately minority establishments or geographic areas. It is also illegal to exclude minorities from certain positions or to group or categorize employees or jobs so that certain jobs are generally held by minorities. Coding applications/resumes to designate an applicant's race, by either an employer or employment agency, constitutes evidence of discrimination where minorities are excluded from employment or from certain positions.
Requesting pre-employment information which discloses or tends to disclose an applicant's race suggests that race will be unlawfully used as a basis for hiring. Solicitation of such pre-employment information is presumed to be used as a basis for making selection decisions. Therefore, if members of minority groups are excluded from employment, the request for such pre-employment information would likely constitute evidence of discrimination.
However, employers may legitimately need information about their employees' or applicants' race for affirmative action purposes and/or to track applicant flow. One way to obtain racial information and simultaneously guard against discriminatory selection is for employers to use "tear-off sheets" for the identification of an applicant's race. After the applicant completes the application and the tear-off portion, the employer separates the tear-off sheet from the application and does not us it in the selection process.
Racial Stereotyping, Subtle Racial Bias, and Code Words
In the prototypical case, race discrimination occur when an employers rejects a member of one racial group in favor of a member of a different racial group. Thus, if an employer refuses to hire an African-American applicant because of his race and, in his place, hires a White applicant, that employer violates Title VII. Race discrimination, however, can manifest itself in a variety of ways. Discrimination is often the product of invidious stereotypes. In some cases, those stereotypes extend to all members of a disfavored group, tainting the employment prospects of any member of that group. In other cases, however, the stereotype draws a distinction between or among members of the protected group. In such a case, an employer, operating from the stereotype, may select one member of the protected group in lieu of a member of that same group. Such "intragroup" discrimination is unlawful under Title VII.
If race plays a role in the decision-making process, the employment decision is the product of impermissible race discrimination, regardless of whether the decision-maker holds explicitly discriminatory attitudes about members of the protected racial group. In fact, racial attitudes can infect employment decisions even where the decision-makers are members fo the same racial group as the aggrieved employee.
Intersectional discrimination is discrimination based on a combination of two or more prohibited bases. In intersectional cases, the discrimination adversely affects individuals who are members of two or more protected categories precisely because they belong to the two categories (e.g. race and gender, color and gender, color and disability, race and age, gender and age, etc.). The discrimination is premised on the combination of protected characteristics rather than any one of them alone.
Take the example of a race and gender claim brought by an Asian-American woman. The woman alleges that she was not hired for a sales position. The claim is not defeated by showing that the employer does not discriminate against women and/or Asian-Americans generally. Rather, the question is whether the employer discriminates against those who are both female and Asian-American. Using the example, the Asian-American woman may have been subjected to stereotypes and targeted for discrimination not because she's a woman or Asian-American, but rather, because she's an Asian-American woman who was perceived as too meek for the sales position. Intersectional discrimination often arises out of stereotyping specific to particular intersected groups, such as women of color, African-American men and racial minorities with disabilities.
It is important to keep in mind that intersectional discrimination is different from discrimination based on multiple prohibited factors. Multiple discrimination involves the allegation of independent claims of discrimination on each of two or more prohibited bases. For example, an employer may have a promotion policy which disproportionately excludes both women (of all races) and African-Americans. In such a scenario, and African-American woman could bring multiple claims of discrimination alleging both race and gender discrimination independently. This differs from the intersectional discrimination where the individual asserts a single claim that the employer has taken some adverse action based on the combination of prohibited characteristics.