Employment Discrmination

Problem and Law for Employment Discrimination

It is imperative for all employees in sport organizations to have working knowledge of Title VII allowances and prohibitions so as to effectively manage the organization within the law. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2009) allows all persons access to equal employment opportunities by prohibiting discrimination in any aspect of employment (e.g., hiring, training, compensation, promoting, discharge) on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Public and private sport organizations with 15 or more employees are bound by Title VII legislation, and it is extended to U.S. citizens in foreign countries employed in organizations owned or controlled by a U.S. company. The provisions of Title VII are also applicable to players of sport teams (Carleton, pp.285-312).

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency charged with the enforcement and administration of Title VII. There are four main theories of liability under Title VII: disparate impact, systemic disparate treatment, individual disparate treatment, and retaliation. Adverse or disparate impact discrimination occurs when identical employment standards or procedures (e.g., employment qualification tests) are applied consistently to everyone but lead to a substantial difference in employment outcomes for members of a protected class unrelated to success on a job. Disparate treatment is a result of intentional discrimination against a person, or it can exist when an employer's policies or application of those policies produce treatment that disadvantages one group on the basis of a protected class status (Cozzillio, pp. 96-105). The disparate treatment theory involves cases that rely on direct evidence (i.e., discriminatory verbal or written expression and blanket exclusionary policies), circumstantial evidence (e.g., statistical evidence), and mixed-motive cases that rely on both direct evidence of the intention to discriminate and proof that the employer's stated legitimate basis for his/her employment decision is actually a pretext for illegal discrimination. Finally, Title VII legislation also prohibits retaliation against a person (e.g., firing or demoting) who opposes discrimination and brought the charges or participated in an investigation or hearing.

Title VII allows for a few exemptions under the law. Among these include the ability of an employer to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, and national origin if it is established that the discrimination is job related and thus a business necessity or a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (Duru, pp.155-265). A BFOQ is considered permissible when discrimination on the basis of protected class status is reasonably necessary to carry out a job function in the normal operation of an organization, and it is based upon a legitimate safety rationale. Many employers in sport organizations often attempt to justify a work assignment based on sex, such as restricting members of one sex from covering the sport of another sex, by invoking the BFOQ exception of Title VII statute but it is unlikely that this reasoning would have a legitimate safety foundation as to be considered a ...