Equal Employment Opportunity

Affirmative Action &

Workforce Diversity

What is Affirmative Action?

“those actions appropriate to overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to EEO”

Recruitment of under-represented groups

Changing attitudes Targeted internships/other programs Preferential treatment

– Soft goals Hard goals

The “Q” Word (Quotas) When is preferential treatment allowed?

– Court-mandated (egregious cases)– Federal contractors– Voluntary programs (Weber rules)

• Part of bona fide program to resolve historical imbalance

• Temporary & may not trammel rights of others

“Quotas” vs. “Goals and Timetables” Quotas and Qualifications

What is the purpose of AA?

• Remedy for past discrimination?• Assist those who are disadvantaged?• To promote diversity?

Purpose 1: Remedy for Past Discrimination

Two theories of how to remedy:– “Level playing field”--eliminate barriers– Compensatory assistance

Issues– Is this philosophically inconsistent?– Is it still needed or relevant?

Are We Making Progress? ? % of executive, administrative and

managerial positions are held by blacks ? % of the 394 Supreme Court law

clerks are African-Americans (1998)

? % agreed that people with AIDS should be covered by ADA

Purpose 2: Assist Disadvantaged

Issues– Group or individual (actual victims)?– Who is “disadvantaged”?

• Is race/sex an imprecise surrogate?

– Where does responsibility lie?• Society, schools, employers?

– When should assistance end?• e.g., “glass ceiling”

Purpose 3: Enhance Diversity

• In U of Michigan case (2003) Supreme Court agreed that diversity may be a legitimate purpose

• This was in an education setting—would it generalize to other settings?

Diversity vs. Affirmative Action

AA: Strategy intended to achieve fair employment by urging employers to employ groups who were discriminated against in past

Diversity: Strategy in which nontraditional employees are fully integrated...as key factors in company performance

Adapted from Gomez-Mejia, Balkin & Cardy (1995)

A Business Case for Diversity• Increased potential for new ideas• Better interaction with diverse customers• Customers’ expectations

• 40% of Blacks indicated “Black employment” is important to buying decisions (1998 USA Today poll)

• Lawsuits by customers cost Denny’s $54 M

• Applicants’ expectations

Dennys: A Success Story? 1994: $54.4 M lawsuit by customers

– no minorities in top mgmt, only 1 on board, only 1 minority franchisee

– no contracts with minority vendors 1998: Fortune list of best firms for minorities

– 33% of board, officers & managers are minorities

– $125M (14%) of vendors are minorities– Managers are evaluated on “valuing diversity”