Human Resources Consultant
Vice President for Human Resources
I write you in regards of your request to present a report on the discrimination charges of disparate impact brought to our attention by one of our employees, Stanley Root, represented by the law firm of Eaglette-Schubert LLC. Stanley Root contacted the law firm, claiming that he was repeatedly passed over for promotion opportunities despite positive performances.
Tanglewood promotes diversity in the workplace, and all hiring and promotion are made on the basis of character and quality of work. The ensuing lawsuit brings a need to analyze Tanlgewood’s selection methods to ensure these are not against the promotion of diversity.
In order to ensure compliance, we have to study the flow and concentration statistics of our organization. Flow statistics are calculated by comparing the number of people who were hired or promoted in our organization with the number of people who applied for the positions listed. These statistics are divided into groups (white, non-white, African-American), and the selection rates are compared to determine if there is a significant difference in the selection process.
To ensure that we are in compliance with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), we have to make sure that we keep records that will allow for calculation and comparison of these statistics. The UGEPS requires that the 4/5 rule be calculated in our organization. Based on this rule, if any group’s selection rate is less than 4/5 of the group with the highest rate, will usually considered to be evidence of adverse impact.
In order to ensure our compliance with all the required regulations, we performed two different disparate impact analysis in this case. One is to contrast the representation of white employees compared to non-white employees and African-American employees as a group, using the fourth-fifth rule, and the other comparison is to contrast the difference in representation of white employees compared to non-white and African-American employee
1. To analyze disparate impact, it requires to compare the availability of protected classes (the proportion of the qualified and available workforce who are members of protected classes) to the utilization of protected classes (the proportion of those employed who are members of protected classes) for each job in the organization. In the flow analysis presented, and the chart below, data from the organization’s hiring practices and applicant pool are used to compare how many individuals were hired from various groups in the applicant pool. Selection ratios and the 4/5 rule
This method to assess disparate impact is to compare the proportion of applicants who are hired from several sources. The rule states that if the organization’s utilization rate of minority group is below fourth-fifth (0.8) of the utilization rate of a majority group, disparate impact may exist. In our case, there are both external and internal applicants for the positions listed: A. Store Associate:
a) We have only external candidates for this position. The applicant versus selection ratio is 20.87% Whites, 21.90% Non-Whites, and 22.73% African-American. Comparing the minority selection ratio to the majority selection ratio, more than 80.00% are hired, so there is no sign of disparate impact. B. Shift Leader:
a) External hires: there is a percentage of 57.58% for Non-White, and 69.67% for African-American, both below the 80.00% required by the 4/5 rule. This can be considered disparate impact. b) Internal hires: both total Non-White, with 75.81% and African-American, with 59.08% are below the 80.00%, or the 4/5 rule. C. Department Manager:
a) External hires: both minority groups are above the 80.00% ratio, with 93.46% for Non-White, and 89.27% for African-American, therefore no sign of disparate impact. b)...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document