Legal Discrimination?

[Rob Lister]

The Affirmative Action post inspired me to create this one. It has little or nothing to do with Affirmative Action and a great deal to do with the laws regarding discrimination in hiring practices here in the U.S.

Suppose I want to open an upscale Mall store called Ebony and Ivory. I seek to take advantage of a recent (imaginary) fashion trend regarding the mixing of black and white. The theme of the store is to sell items (nicknacks, clothing, etc.) that are a combination of the colors black and white.

Suppose too that I want to extend the theme even to the clerks that operate and manage the store such that each store will have two counters located on opposite sides of the entry: one black counter, and one white counter. Behind the black counter, I want to employ a starkly ‘white’ blond as a clerk. Behind the white counter I want to employ a starkly ‘black’ brunette as a clerk.

Is this legal?

 

[crimresearch]

Suppose you wanted to put on a play and call it 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?'.

Should you be allowed to cast a black actor and a white actress in it?

Suppose you wanted to open up a sports bar and call it 'Hooters'.

Should you be allowed to hire young attractive women to work there?

Suppose you wanted to open up a university and call it Galaudet.

Should you be allowed to hire only deaf university presidents?


First person to post 'But that's different', loses this thread.

 

[Cleon]

Is it legal? Dunno. It would be an interesting court case, that's for sure.

But if you want to direct the customers on which counter to use based on their race, good effing luck.

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Ebony and Ivory"? Sounds like a porno.

 

[kimiko]

If you have under 15 employees, you're fine doing that.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

Title VII and the ADA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

bolding mine
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

edited to fix inaccuracy

 

[Kerberos]

The Affirmative Action post inspired me to create this one. It has little or nothing to do with Affirmative Action and a great deal to do with the laws regarding discrimination in hiring practices here in the U.S.

Suppose I want to open an upscale Mall store called Ebony and Ivory. I seek to take advantage of a recent (imaginary) fashion trend regarding the mixing of black and white. The theme of the store is to sell items (nicknacks, clothing, etc.) that are a combination of the colors black and white.

Suppose too that I want to extend the theme even to the clerks that operate and manage the store such that each store will have two counters located on opposite sides of the entry: one black counter, and one white counter. Behind the black counter, I want to employ a starkly ‘white’ blond as a clerk. Behind the white counter I want to employ a starkly ‘black’ brunette as a clerk.

Is this legal?

I don't know anything about American legislation on that issue, but I'm not the type to let such petty details stop me. I'd think you'd have a reasonably good case because a) there is a reason for it caused by the theme of you shop and b) you're hiring people of two different races, which I suspect would work in you favour, despite the fact that you’d still be discriminating against fx. Asians.

 

[Manny]

First person to post 'But that's different', loses this thread.

Except that they are different for purposes of the question posed in the opening post.

Leave aside whether they are morally different -- Rob Lister asks whether they are legally different. Persons of different races are a protected class under US and state laws (with some exceptions, as with your casting example). Persons with disabilities are in some instances a protected class under US law and in some other instances under some state laws. Persons without disabilities are not a protected class under US law and most state laws. Unattractive people are not a protected class. Men are not a protected class, at least not at Hooters, the EEOC's four-year attempt to change that notwithstanding.

That said, I don't know the answer. My WAG is that Rob could not execute his business plan unless a) he was willing to hire persons of any race and assign them to registers based on their skin tone (say, light-skinned Hispanics and Arabs on the "white" side, Asians and dark-skinned Hispanics on the "dark" side or something equally silly), b) Pay, hours, opportunities for managment, etc. were the same for each 'side' of the store and c) he had a billion lawyers. But as the Hooters case showed, parties with enough persistence can win at least some latitude to staff without regard to normally protected classes and as your example of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner shows some particularly artistic fields have extremely wide latitude to do so.

 

[crimresearch]

No, actually for legal purposes, as thrashed out ad nauseum in the smoking threads, they are the same.

A person is allowed to choose employees on the basis of race, age, etc. provded there is a good reason to do so...like casting a black actor in a play, or only hiring young models for a certain product.

If this store owner can convince a jury that they are doing the same thing, they would get the same pass.

If the intent is to violate the law, then that can be shown in court, as with other legal case.

 

[Earthborn]

Is this legal?

I don't know whether it is legal in the USA. If it's legal you should expect protestors picketing you store though.

Your concept requires you to hire 50% black and 50% white employees. So if you live in an area where the proportions are different, you are basically discriminating against one of those groups. The proportions are likely closer to 20% black, 80% white so that would mean you are discriminating against whites. It wouldn't be the first time someone was prosecuted for doing that.

Also, your concept requires some level of segregation. A whole lot of people will find that unacceptable. If it is legal now, they will try to make it illegal.

Suppose you wanted to put on a play and call it 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?'.

Should you be allowed to cast a black actor and a white actress in it?

You should be allowed to cast anyone who can play the part, regardless of skincolour or (sub)cultural background.

Suppose you wanted to open up a sports bar and call it 'Hooters'.

Should you be allowed to hire young attractive women to work there?

You should be allowed to hire anyone who can do what is necessary for the job, regardless of age or sex.

Suppose you wanted to open up a university and call it Galaudet.

Should you be allowed to hire only deaf university presidents?

No, I don't think so. I do think however that a university can demand that its president has skills necessary to do his job, such as speaking the language the university officially uses. If that language is sign language, the university president should be fluent in sign language.

Also, if the university represents a specific cultural group, the president needs to be familiar with that culture. A university for the deaf needs a president who is familiar with deaf culture.

 

[crimresearch]

You seem to be contradicting your own points...why wouldn't you be required to hire according to local demographics in Hooters, or in the theater, but you would in the B&W store?

 

[Earthborn]

why wouldn't you be required to hire according to local demographics in Hooters, or in the theater, but you would in the B&W store?

I never said that the B&W store is required to hire according to local demographics. I just said that if it hires people in different proportions than the applicants, it is likely discriminating. If 20% of the applicants are black, 80% are white, and the store hires 50% black and 50% white, whites are likely discriminated against. If the store is in an area where there are 20% black people and 80% white, but for some reason the applicants are 50% black and 50% white, and the store hires accordingly, then it is likely not discriminating.

I don't think the store should be forced to hire according to quotas, but I also don't think they should be allowed to set their own quotas in order to discriminate. They should simply make a list of what they expect their employees to do, and hire the people they think are most capable of doing it.

 

[crimresearch]

OK....and this store expects their employee's skin color to match the decor..so is that any more illegal than the other examples?

 

[CBL4]

A person is allowed to choose employees on the basis of race, age, etc. provded there is a good reason to do so...like casting a black actor in a play

This sounds reasonable but, considering it is a government regulation, I am skeptical about it. Do you have a link?

For what it is worth (probably very little), I saw Othello where both Othello and Iago were black. Even though the words were the same, it changed the impact. Actually the actor who played Iago was superb and stole the show.

CBL

 

[crimresearch]

You are skeptical that people are allowed to hire models and actors, etc. based on their skin color or race being suitable for the role/job?

So a 500 pound, 68 year old white man could show up and successfully sue to be given a job as a model for African American children's products?


Oooookaaaay then....


Here's a definition for discrimination:
" – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin."
http://www.legal-definitions.com/discriminination.htm

And the civil rights laws do in fact prohibit discrimination in hiring based on age, race, etc...so my statement that you can hire on age, race, et al. should only be considered in the absence of discrimination.

Which as in my extreme example above, can be countered by a legitimate reason for race, age, lack of disability, etc. being part of the job qualifications.

In other words, I'm pretty sure any lawsuit claiming that Denzel Washington shouldn't have been allowed to play Malcolm X wouldn't get too far.

 

[Rob Lister]

You are skeptical that people are allowed to hire models and actors, etc. based on their skin color or race being suitable for the role/job?

So a 500 pound, 68 year old white man could show up and successfully sue to be given a job as a model for African American children's products?


Oooookaaaay then....


Here's a definition for discrimination:
" – discrimination is defined as treating one person unfairly over another according to factors unrelated to their ability or potential, such as age, disability, sex, or national origin."
http://www.legal-definitions.com/discriminination.htm

And the civil rights laws do in fact prohibit discrimination in hiring based on age, race, etc...so my statement that you can hire on age, race, et al. should only be considered in the absence of discrimination.

Which as in my extreme example above, can be countered by a legitimate reason for race, age, lack of disability, etc. being part of the job qualifications.

In other words, I'm pretty sure any lawsuit claiming that Denzel Washington shouldn't have been allowed to play Malcolm X wouldn't get too far.

YOur point is well taken, however...

(m) Except as otherwise provided in this title, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any
employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

I searched/scanned but could not find the exception you mentioned, even though I'm sure it exists in some form.

Personally, I think Tom Cruize would have made a much better Malcolm X than Denzel. He should sue.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Personally, I think Tom Cruize would have made a much better Malcolm X than Denzel. He should sue.

Oh, I must have missed the "going crazy, leaping up and down, walking on the sofa, and grabbing Oprah and physically shaking her" scene in Malcolm X. Yeah, Tom does do that better than anyone.

 

[Rob Lister]

Oh, I must have missed the "going crazy, leaping up and down, walking on the sofa, and grabbing Oprah and physically shaking her" scene in Malcolm X. Yeah, Tom does do that better than anyone.

He was playing a part, you silly ape. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[TragicMonkey]

He was playing a part, you silly ape. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

What part? That of Xenu, the evil space overlord who drops nuclear bombs into volcanos, creating body thetans who will steal your mind?

 

[Libertarian]

A person is allowed to choose employees on the basis of race, age, etc. provded there is a good reason to do so...like casting a black actor in a play, or only hiring young models for a certain product.

Wow, ever have a revelation because, for a split second, you misread a sentence?? In the above, I thought I read, "a person is allowed to choose EMPLOYERS.............."

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe that person A has the right to hire or not hire anyone they so choose........

but I just thought it'd be an interesting question to ask the social engineers: "Should a person be allowed to choose their EMPLOYER based on race?" To cut to the chase: if it's wrong for me to hire a white person over a black (or vice versa), shouldn't it be wrong for an employee to do the same??

 

[RandFan]

"Ebony and Ivory"? Sounds like a porno.

Sounds like a song to me. But porno is always the better choice.