USA PATRIOT ACT 2005

USA Patriot Act 2005 in context with organization's policy on harassment and discrimination

USA Patriot Act 2005 in context with organization's policy on harassment and discrimination

Introduction

The USA Patriot Act 2005 is the shorthand term for Public Law, federal legislation that is also known by its complete name as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. This legislation was signed into law by President George W. Bush, less than two months after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed an initial version (Doyle, 2002).

The USA Patriot Act 2005 in the light of organization's policy on harassment and discrimination particularly referred in term of sexual harassment and the racial discrimination. However, sexual harassment is only one form of organization harassment actionable under U.S. civil rights laws. In the United States, such laws protect against employment discrimination based on race, ethnicity, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, and disability. Thus, the intent of these laws is to protect historically less powerful groups. The essence of harassment and discrimination as stressors involves perceiving differential treatment in the workplace based on some biological, physical, or social characteristic leading to the creation of an unwelcoming or hostile environment that can negatively affect targets' job satisfaction, mental and physical health, and ability to do the job (Balser, 2000).

Discussion and Analysis

The USA Patriot Act 2005 is most known for its significant expansion of the information it makes available to law enforcement, the methods allowed for the collection of that information, and the permissible exchange of information between law enforcement and other governmental and investigative agencies. This expansion of tactics and targets eviscerates many of the previous constraints on domestic investigations (Beehr, 1995).

Although we recognize that alternate “equal opportunity” forms exist that are not based on legally protected characteristics, the focus of this paper is on organizational policies of harassment and discrimination that are covered under U.S. law. We should note, however, that legally proscribed policies of harassment not only tend to co-occur but also may occur alongside more generalized harassment (e.g., bullying) and even violence on the job. For example Barling, Rogers, and Kelloway found that sexual harassment and workplace violence were highly correlated and predicted negative outcomes for victims in a similar way in a sample of in-home health and mental health care workers (Balser, 2000).

We are unaware of research that has studied relationships between other illegal policies of harassment and generalized harassment or violence, but readers should keep in mind that many different types of mistreatment may co-occur in workplaces conducive to such behaviors. Our approach to the discussion of harassment and discrimination is similar to that taken in the sexual harassment literature. A legal definition would be based on criteria for judging a particular set of experiences as constituting harassment or discrimination, as determined by law. A behavioral definition of harassment or discrimination references the measurement strategy employed, that is, whether subjects report experiencing behaviors that might be considered harassing or discriminatory (Beehr, ...