Frank J. Cavico

Appearance discrimination in employment: Legal and ethical implications of “lookism” and “lookphobia”

Purpose – The article aims to provide a discussion of societal norms concerning “attractiveness,” the existence of appearance discrimination in employment, the presence of “preferring the pretty”, and then the authors examine important civil rights laws that relate to such forms of discrimination. Finally, the authors apply ethical theories to determine whether such discrimination can be seen as moral or immoral.Design/methodology/approach – It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on look. Court cases and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed.Findings – The paper finds that appearance‐based discrimination is not illegal in the USA so long as it does not violate civil rights laws.Research limitations/implications – This research is limited to Federal and State laws in the USA and may not be relevant in other countries as the local laws might vary.Practical implications – Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workpla...

Employment Discrimination and Muslims in America

Fears of terrorism and radical extremists have engendered increased discrimination and harassment in the US workplace against Muslim employees. The principal purpose of this paper is to examine civil rights law in the USA as applied to the religious discrimination and harassment of Muslim and Arab-American employees. The paper provides an overview of the US discrimination laws and discusses the nature and role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in implementing and enforcing discrimination law. Detailed recommendations are supplied to managers on how to deal with civil rights laws generally and the prohibitions against religious harassment and discrimination specifically. Recommendations are also provided on how to deal with and to defend discrimination lawsuits.

Business ethics development of working adults: a study in Vietnam

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to ascertain if age, gender, management experience and government work experience actually make a difference in the ethical development of respondents in Vietnam, an emerging economy in Southeast Asia. Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative self-administered survey was conducted with a convenience sample of Vietnamese working adults obtained through educational institutions, businesses and entrepreneurs and private and public sector organizations. This study used Clark and Clark’s (1966) Personal Business Ethics Scores measure. The Vietnamese version questionnaire was distributed, and a total of 704 surveys were fully completed and analyzed. Findings – Statistically significant differences were found in the variables of age, gender and government work experience. Management experience did not lead to any significant differences. Consequently, Kohlberg’s moral development theory regarding ethical development is partially supported. Research limitations/implicati...

Developing a Legal, Ethical, and Socially Responsible Mindset for Business Leadership

One of the main responsibilities of educators is to prepare the future leaders for our communities and society so they can think of the legal, ethical, social, and environmental consequences of the ...

Wellness Programs and Means of Getting Employees to Stay Healthy: A Response to Kristin Van Busum and Soeren Mattke

This is a short writing in response to the “Financial Incentives: Only One Piece of the Workplace Wellness Puzzle” (1) by Kristin Van Busum and Soeren Mattke of the RAND Health Advisory Services, RAND Corporation, in Boston.

Examining the Efficacy of the Common Law Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Bullying in the Context of the Employment Relationship

The common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a frequently occurring lawsuit. It seems that in almost every wrongful discharge suit by a terminated employee at-will, or lawsuit to redress bullying-like conduct at work, or lawsuit pursuant to civil rights act for discrimination or harassment there appears a count for the IIED tort. As such, there are many, many IIED cases; however, this article demonstrates that there are only a handful of cases that are successful due to the various elements to the tort as well as the high evidentiary hurdles to sustain those elements. This article explicates the elements of the tort and illustrates those elements in the context of wrongful discharge, bullying, and discrimination/harassment lawsuits. The authors discuss the implications of the tort, particularly for management; and provide recommendations to employers on how to avoid liability, especially by bully-proofing the organization, and also to employees on how to sustain an IIED cause of action.

Restaurant Liability for Contaminated Food and Beverages Pursuant to Negligence, Warranty, and Strict Liability Laws

Managers, owners and employees of all food providers must make sure that their products are safe, wholesome, and unadulterated prior to selling them. They must all be experts in making, storing, selling, preparing, and serving food. Otherwise, they could hurt consumers and face lawsuits since foodborne illnesses are a serious problem in the United States and around the world. Each year, about 48 million people in the United States suffer from foodborne illnesses that are linked to Salmonella, Norovirus, Listeria, and E. coli. This article examines three legal liability theories of negligence, warranty, and strict liability that are linked to contaminated food and beverages provided by restaurants. The authors end with recommendations to restaurant owners, employers, and managers on how to avoid liability by going above and beyond the law to provide quality food and beverages.

Diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination pursuant to Title VII of US civil rights laws: A primer for management

Purpose While the words diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination are commonly read and heard by working adults and professionals, they can at times be confusing and fearful to some managers. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of a specific aspect of US civil rights laws – the disparate impact theory. The authors provide an analysis based on the statute, case law interpreting, and applying the statute, administrative guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as legal and management commentary. The paper illustrates the requirements of a plaintiff employee’s initial case based on the disparate impact theory. The challenging causation component which requires some degree of statistical evidence is given particular attention. Limitations to the paper are stated at the beginning; and recommendations to managers are explored and provided toward the end of the paper. Design/methodology/approach It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. Actual court cases up until this month and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed. Findings The salient feature of disparate impact is that this legal theory allows a plaintiff job applicant or employee to sustain a case of illegal discrimination without providing any evidence of a discriminatory motive. As opposed to the disparate treatment liability is imposed based on disproportionate adverse results and not discriminatory intent. Research limitations/implications This paper deals with the disparate impact theory pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, it must be pointed out that the disparate impact theory is also applicable to claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Since the focus of this paper is Title VII federal and state constitutional issues, such as the applicability of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause that may arise in disparate impact cases involving government entities will not be addressed. Practical implications Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workplace from illegal discriminatory practices. Initially, employers and managers must be aware of the distinction between a disparate impact case and a disparate treatment case with the latter requiring evidence of intentional discrimination. Evidence, of course, can be direct or circumstantial or inferential. Whereas in a disparate impact case there is no intentional discrimination; and as such proof of discriminatory intent is not required. Rather, the employee has to present evidence that the employer’s neutral on-its-face employment policy or practice caused an adverse disproportionate impact on the employee as a member of a protected class. Social implications Human resources professionals and managers must become educated in diversity laws in order to provide an inclusive workplace for all employees and candidates. Employers have legitimate areas of concern in hiring and promoting employees; and the courts are cognizant of employer responsibilities; and thus the employers must be able to show how specific knowledge, skills, education, training, backgrounds, as well as height, weight, strength, and dexterity are legitimate qualifications that directly relate to successful job performance. Originality/value This is an original paper by the authors.

Does Altman's z-score predict the economic viability of health maintenance organisations?

A history of the successful containment of healthcare costs, in addition to the federal governments endorsement of managed care, attributed to increasing numbers of Health Maintenance Organisations (HMOs) over the past 20 years. Unfortunately, with the increase in the number of organisations, there has been an increase in the number of financial failures. This paper examines the applicability of Altmans revised four-variable z-score model, a bankruptcy prediction tool designed to forecast financial failure utilising the electronically published financial data of HMOs. This research represents a seminal study in the service sector of health insurance companies that will benefit stakeholders.