Henry Findley

Procedural fairness in performance appraisal: Beyond the review session

Utilizing an organizational justice perspective, this cross-organizational study developed procedural fairness dimensions for the appraisal review session and two contextual domains of the performance appraisal process. The contextual domains were: (a) the structure, policies, and support characterizing the formal appraisal system, and (b) the appraisal-related interactions that occur throughout the year between supervisors and subordinates. In addition, relationships of the three procedural variable sets and their respective individual variables with three fairness (two distributive justice and one global) criteria were assessed. Procedures from the session and system domains were found to be most useful for predicting the fairness criteria.

COLOR DISCRIMINATION: DIFFERENTIATE AT YOUR PERIL

Color bias is discrimination based on differences in skin pigmentation. Despite the plain language of the Civil Rights Act, this form of discrimination, was, for many years, either not actionable or treated as race discrimination. After the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, claims of color discrimination have been recognized by the lower courts and the number of color-bias cases have increased dramatically. Interestingly, these cases are proving to be mostly an intraracial phenomenon. This article examines the emerging case law surrounding color-discrimination complaints. The significance of the issue has grown with changes in the racial diversity of the American workforce. Our conclusions focus on the managerial implications of the consequences of color discrimination and the cost of failure to recognize and deal with color bias in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act states that, “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, or national origin” [1]. Despite this prohibition on color discrimination, there is a dearth of legal research concerning the legal principles governing its use. Even employment law texts fail to address the matter or subsume it within the race discrimination rubric [2. 3]. The EEOC does not even list color as a

Same-sex harassment: how hostile does it have to be?

Purpose – This paper relates to the recent media attention with respect to same-sex issues is leading to a rise in same-sex sexual harassment cases. Given its complicated burden of proof under case law interpretations of the Civil Rights Act, it would be helpful to review current case law governing the issue. Design/methodology/approach – This review was conducted at the appeals court level where the law is more settled. Over 40 relevant cases were identified and reviewed. Based on this review, guiding principles were derived for practitioners. Findings – The law is complex, however, several principles can be gleaned: same-sex harassment is only actionable under four specific conditions: sexual overtures, general hostility toward a particular gender, unequal treatment of the sexes and sex-role stereotypes. For those cases meeting these requirements, unwanted physical contact of an intimate nature is considered severe and only requires a few occurrences to be hostile. For conduct that is verbal or visual, ...

MODERNIZING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

This article addresses the topic of affirmative action. The authors contend that the available information suggests that many of the broad-based notions that underlie current AA concepts are obsolete because decades of legislative and judicial remedies to combat overt discrimination have had positive results. This article argues that affirmative action policies may need to shift from their traditional emphasis on broad racial/gender characteristics to focus directly on economic disadvantage. Affirmative action (AA) has been an integral part of our national fabric for nearly four decades and may be the most divisive public policy issue of our time. Within the U.S. Supreme Court, a heated debate on the merits of AA has developed over the past two decades, reflecting the sharply divided opinion of the general public. In particular, Justice Clarence Thomas has harshly criticized the majority of the Court for endorsing the use of race-based preferences to remedy past employment discrimination. The majority of the Supreme Court reasons that outlawing existing discrimination is not an adequate response to a historical legacy of racial bias. After initial uncertainty, the majority now holds there is a compelling state interest in fully addressing a history of discrimination. Consequently, race-conscious

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES: CONSTITUTIONALITY AND EMPLOYMENT IMPLICATIONS

Passage of faith-based aid to religious charities appears imminent and government barriers to faith-based organizations competing for government funding have been removed by executive order. The impact of these changes should be significant because today many thousands of religious organizations exist, employing several million workers. This article reviews the constitutional and employment implications of actual and contemplated initiatives that would provide such organizations with federal aid for nonreligious activities. In general, aid to religious organizations has been deemed constitutional as long as it is appropriately tailored and the religious organization meets certain guidelines. Faith-based organizations may discriminate based on religion when selecting those involved in ministerial positions. However, with respect to other positions, they cannot discriminate based on sex, race, age, etc. unless it is consistent with their religious beliefs. Thus their “right to discriminate” may not be much greater than that allowed to nonfaith-based organizations. Soon after his inauguration, President George W. Bush proposed that federal funds be provided to religious entities, because so many services they provide afford vital assistance to the needy and disadvantaged. These initiatives have long been suggested for a variety of other reasons as well: to utilize an existing social support pipeline and forgo additional government bureaucracy, to redress a perceived government bias against religious programs [1], to tap religious organizations’

Do's and don'ts in the search for faculty talent

The maximisation of recruiting efforts is often inexact and cloaked in mystery. In order to demystify this process and use scarce resources wisely, universities must become more creative and open to new recruiting methods. Through an examination of various recruiting methods and a study of recruiting techniques used by Alabama public universities, recommendations are offered to search committees for finding the best candidate for their next faculty search.

SEXUAL PREFERENCE AND EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS

This article addresses the hotly debated topic of sexual preference and the legal rights of gays in employment. We focus on federal and state legislation and policies regarding sexual preference in employment and the related court decisions. Toward the end of the article, we discuss same-sex sexual harassment. Generally, we show that a person’s sexual orientation is protected much more strongly in the public sector than in the private sector and that the courts are gradually strengthening the employment rights of people that we commonly call “gay” today, e.g., homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgendered persons. When we later use the term “gay,” we will be referring to this broad classification unless we specifically narrow the term to include fewer groups of people. Sexual orientation, more specifically, gay rights, is one of the most divisive and emotional subjects of our time. This issue has once again attracted the nation’s interest because of several recent events: 1) the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence and Garner v. Texas striking down a Texas law prohibiting consensual homosexual activity in the privacy of one’s home [1], 2) Massachusetts’ high court finding that the state constitution requires recognizing same-sex marriages [2], 3) the failed attempt to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay

Dress and Grooming Standards: How Legal are They?

Many employers and researchers believe that even-handed dress and grooming standards are legal. However, in certain situations there can be serious legal pitfalls for those who adhere to this practice. Exceptions to dress and grooming standards may be required based on religion, freedom of expression, collective bargaining rights, and more recently, on sex. In an evolving part of the case law, dress and grooming standards based on sex-role stereotypes even-handedly applied are more often being ruled illegal by the courts. Moreover, many states protect dress as it relates to sexual preference. The relevant legal case history is reviewed and guiding principles provided. The manner in which people dress goes to the heart and soul of who and what they are in terms of personality, identity, gender, attitudes, and abilities [1]. Attire affects one’s image and how s/he is perceived by managers, other employees, and customers [1]. Mindful that a person’s appearance is a reflection of the company’s image and often has a direct impact on the firm’s bottom line, many organizations construct and implement dress and grooming standards to ensure that the organization is portrayed in a positive and professional manner. Sometimes dress

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: THE LAW

This is a review article on the complex and often misunderstood topic of affirmative action. This article reviews the origin of affirmative action, the nature of the plans, and the surrounding legal network. A subsequent article will address contemporary problems and issues. Affirmative action has been with us for nearly 40 years. Interestingly, it was initially intended to be a temporary measure to redress past discriminatory practices [1]. However, like many government programs, it seems to have become a permanent fixture of public policy. But periodically, the nation revisits and debates the value of this divisive issue. This is just such a period, as affirmative action is once again near the foreground of the nation’s conscience, at least partially due to the recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the University of Michigan’s controversial affirmative action plans (AAPs). In June 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Law School’s AAP and struck down its undergraduate AAP [2, 3]. The public interest and furore created by these decisions provides an opportunity to reexamine the legal principles that directly affect at least 190,000 establishments employing more than 22,000,000 workers [4]. This reexamination is of particular importance, since there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion as to the definition and practice of affirmative action. Many wrongly believe that affirmative action involves only hiring quotas

THE WARN ACT AND ITS LEGAL HISTORY

After a long period of period of sustained economic growth, the U.S. economy has experienced a recession and remains sluggish, and layoffs and plant closings are on the rise. Consequently, it is prudent to review the relevant plant-closing legislation (Worker’s Adjustment and Retraining Act), attendant regulations, and subsequent court interpretations. Some seventy appeals court and Supreme Court cases were identified and reviewed. While there are several legal pitfalls firms must avoid to comply with the act, a variety of options are available to organizations that will not force them to meet the act’s 60-days notice requirement. After the longest growth period in American history, the U.S. economy went into recession in the third quarter of 2001 and then came the aftershocks of the attacks of September 11, and the Enron and WorldCom scandals. These events, among others, have led to layoffs in a host of industries. While the economy has shown some improvement, it remains sluggish and layoffs abound. Business bankruptcies are at an all-time high [1] and in the July of 2003 government report, unemployment was over 6% [2]. Interestingly, a seldom-studied federal statute, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), was enacted by Congress more than 10 years ago to address plant closings and mass layoffs in the United States. This