Home Depot case study
Home Depot’s Bumpy Road to Equality
Internet/Case Study Assignment:
1. If Home Depot was correct in that it was not discriminating, but simply filling positions consistent with those who applied for them (and very few women were applying for customer service positions), given your reading of this chapter, was the firm guilty of discrimination?
If so, under what theory?
Yes, Home Depot was accountable of discrimination towards women due to their standards of hiring by reinforcing gender stereotyping; causing them to be guilty of disparate treatment. The disparate treatment in this case was due to women being treated differently in comparison to their male co-workers in regards to promotions, pay, and hiring. Female applicants who felt discriminated were mainly those who applied for jobs within Home Depots West Coast Division. They felt they were being overlooked during hiring and bypassed in connection with promotions, salary, and job assignments opportunities within the workplace. Home Depot, however, felt they did nothing wrong and stated the unfairness of what they were being accused of was due to most female job applicants having experience as cashiers, so they were placed in similar positions, such as, cashier positions, clerical duties, customer service, and so forth. In addition, their explanation for the high turnaround in percentage of male employees within the home repair, plumbing, carpentry departments, etc… were due to male applicants expressing interest in those type of skilled employment.
2. How does this case illustrate the application of new technology to solving issues that have never been tied to technology? Can you think of other ways technology might be used to address diversity/EEO/affirmative action issues?
Home Depot was able to tie technology by solving issues by introducing a Job Preference Program, which provides in-store computer kiosks that allow employees to check job opportunities within their workplace and the skill
Internet/Case Study Assignment:
1. If Home Depot was correct in that it was not discriminating, but simply filling positions consistent with those who applied for them (and very few women were applying for customer service positions), given your reading of this chapter, was the firm guilty of discrimination?
If so, under what theory?
Yes, Home Depot was accountable of discrimination towards women due to their standards of hiring by reinforcing gender stereotyping; causing them to be guilty of disparate treatment. The disparate treatment in this case was due to women being treated differently in comparison to their male co-workers in regards to promotions, pay, and hiring. Female applicants who felt discriminated were mainly those who applied for jobs within Home Depots West Coast Division. They felt they were being overlooked during hiring and bypassed in connection with promotions, salary, and job assignments opportunities within the workplace. Home Depot, however, felt they did nothing wrong and stated the unfairness of what they were being accused of was due to most female job applicants having experience as cashiers, so they were placed in similar positions, such as, cashier positions, clerical duties, customer service, and so forth. In addition, their explanation for the high turnaround in percentage of male employees within the home repair, plumbing, carpentry departments, etc… were due to male applicants expressing interest in those type of skilled employment.
2. How does this case illustrate the application of new technology to solving issues that have never been tied to technology? Can you think of other ways technology might be used to address diversity/EEO/affirmative action issues?
Home Depot was able to tie technology by solving issues by introducing a Job Preference Program, which provides in-store computer kiosks that allow employees to check job opportunities within their workplace and the skill