Investigating Disparate Treatment And Disparate Impact

at
Categories
Tags

 

Chosen Scenario:

The manager of Human Resources, who supports the Marketing Department, has been contacted by an employee who has expressed the following: As a member of a marketing team where new clients are assigned equally among team members, this employee feels that he is being skipped over, and new clients are being assigned to others based on fit, which in his case, he perceives, is related to racial origin, i.e., Caucasian clients are being assigned to Caucasian team members, clients of color are being aligned with team members of color, etc. The employee has expressed his intention of filing a formal complaint and is seeking guidance and support from the Human Resources manager responsible for this department.

 

Question 1: Explain the investigation process (you do not have to outline an entire investigation).

Question 2: As an HR manager, identify the first three steps you recommend the HR team take to begin to investigate this scenario.

Question 3: Explain how the steps you are recommending are designed to protect the employees involved, while also protecting the organization from liability from the situation.

Sample Solution

Both disparate impact and disparate treatment refer to discrimination practices. Disparate impact is often referred to as unintentional discrimination, whereas disparate treatment is intentional. The terms adverse impact and adverse treatment are sometimes used as an alternative. Disparate impact occurs when policies, practices, rules or other systems appear to be neutral result in a disproportionate impact on a protected group. For example, testing all applicants and using results from that test that will unintentionally eliminate certain minority applicants disproportionately is disparate impact. Disparate treatments is intentional employment discrimination. For example, testing a particular skill of only certain minority applicants is disparate treatment.

becomes fundamental when errands are extensive and complex. Associations can track down the Belbin jobs every individual fits through a poll, and consequently adjusted gatherings can be shaped covering every one of the jobs. Be that as it may, as with Fiedler’s possibility model, the hypothesis when meant practice can frequently turn out to be exceptionally unreasonable for associations to routinely carry out. This is to a great extent on the grounds that the association is compelled by the characters of their workers, their might be a wealth of one character type and a shortfall of another, the main arrangement is to employ remotely to fill the missing jobs inside groups. This can bring about a broad finance for an association and tremendous monetary ramifications as they can’t legitimately excuse representative’s on the off chance that they have an excessive number of one character type. The significance of Belbin jobs in a group became clear for Group 1 on the main day of the outside administration course, the gathering had 5 individuals who filled the completer finisher and practitioner jobs, but had nobody filling the asset agent or screen evaluator job, the gathering used up all available time and didn’t get done with the responsibility effectively. Clearly using up all available time was not the sole reason for the gatherings disappointment, but in the event that somebody had been checking time and execution, the gathering might have understood their choice was impossible and might have tracked down an elective arrangement. One answer for absence of Belbin jobs is to relegate explicit jobs to people, this was carried out vigorously on the outside administration course for jobs apparent to be fundamental for progress, for example, time keeping. This strategy works for basic undertakings, but for complex errands the person with the appointed liability can frequently become immersed in the errand and fail to remember their job, or the inverse turning out to be excessively engaged with the obligation they have been relegated. Eventually, as with initiative guaranteeing groups are working appropriately is profoundly reliant upon the circumstance, and turns into the pioneers liability to investigate what is happening and accurately put together gatherings to guarantee a good outcome

This question has been answered.

Get Answer