Discrimination in employment and occupation takes many forms, and occurs in all kinds of work settings. It entails treating people differently because of certain characteristics, such as race, colour or sex, which results in the impairment of equality of opportunity and treatment. In other words, discrimination results in and reinforces inequalities. The freedom of human beings to develop their capabilities and to choose and pursue their professional and personal aspirations is restricted, without regard for ability.
Skills and competencies cannot be developed, rewards to work are denied and a sense of humiliation, frustration and powerlessness takes over. The elimination of discrimination at work is central to social justice, which lies at the heart of the ILO’s mandate. It underpins the concept of decent work for all women and men, which is founded on the notion of equal opportunities for all those who work or seek work and a living, whether as labourers, employers or self-employed, in the formal or the informal economy.
The elimination of discrimination is an indispensable part of any viable strategy for poverty reduction and sustainable economic development. http://www. ilo. org/global/topics/equality-and-discrimination/workplace-discrimination/lang–en/index. htm ————————————————- Laws On Employment Discrimination in the Philippines APRIL 05 2012 Country-specific employment/labour law information Labor Code On Women And Other Forms Of Discrimination
The Labor Code provides that the government shall ensure equal work opportunities, regardless of sex, race, age or creed. Republic Act N° 7192, otherwise known as the “Women In Developing and Nation Building Act,” affords women equal work opportunities with men. Under the Labor Code, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any female employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of sex.
The following are considered acts of discrimination: * Payment of lesser compensation, including wage, salary or other form of remuneration and fringe benefits, to a female employee as against a male employee for work of equal value; and * Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotions, training opportunities, and study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes.
It is also unlawful for an employer to do any of the following: * To require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a female employee shall not get married; * To stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a female employee shall be deemed resigned or separated; * To dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a female employee merely by reason of her marriage; * To deny any female employee the benefits provided in the Labor Code or to discharge any female employee to prevent her from enjoying the benefits provided in the Labor Code; * To discharge any female employee on account of her pregnancy or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy; * To discharge or refuse the admission of any female employee upon her returning to work for fear that she may again be pregnant. The Labor Code also makes it unlawful for an employer to do any of the following: * To discriminate against any employee who has filed any complaint concerning wages or has testified or is about to testify in such complaint; * To discriminate against employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization; * To discriminate in regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization; * To discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under the Labor Code.
Republic Act N° 7277 (“RA 7277”), As Amended By Republic Act N° 9442, otherwise known as the “Magna Carta for Persons with Disability” RA 7277 provides that no person with disability shall be denied access to opportunities for suitable employment. A qualified employee with disability is subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a qualified able-bodied person. Furthermore, no employer shall discriminate against a qualified person with disability by reason of disability in regard to job application procedures; the hiring, promotion or discharge of employees; employee compensation; job training; and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. The following constitute acts of discrimination: * Limiting, segregating or classifying a job pplicant with disability in such a manner that adversely affects his or her work opportunities;
* Using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out a person with disability unless such standards, tests or other selection criteria are shown to be job-related for the position in question and are consistent with business necessity; * Utilizing standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability or perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control; * Providing less compensation, such as salary, wage or other forms of remuneration and fringe benefits, to a qualified employee with disability, by reason of his or her disability, than the amount to which a person without disability performing the same work is entitled; * Favoring an employee without disability over a qualified employee with disability with respect to promotions, training opportunities, and study and scholarship grants, solely on account of the latter’s disability;
* Re-assigning or transferring an employee with disability to a job or position he or she cannot perform by reason of his or her disability;
* Dismissingorterminatingtheservicesofanemployeewithdisabilitybyreason of his or her disability, unless the employer can prove that he or she impairs the satisfactory performance of the work involved to the prejudice of the business entity, provided, however, that the employer first sought to provide reasonable accommodations for the employee with disability;
* Failing to select or administer in the most effective manner employment tests which accurately reflect the skills, aptitude or other factor of the applicant or employee with disability that such tests purports to measure, rather than the impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills of such applicant or employee, if any; and * Excluding persons with disability from membership in labor unions or similar organizations. Republic Act N° 8371 (“RA 8371”), Otherwise Known As The “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act Of 1997” RA 8371 provides that it shall be the right of the indigenous cultural communities/ indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) to be free from any form of discrimination, with respect to recruitment and conditions of employment so that they may enjoy equal opportunities for admission to employment, medical and social assistance, and safety, as well as other occupationally-related benefits. RA 8371 makes it unlawful for any person: * To discriminate against any ICC/IP with respect to the terms and conditions of employment on account of their descent.
In this regard, ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs should be paid equal remuneration for work of equal value; and * To deny any ICC/IP employee any right or benefit herein provided for or to discharge them for the purpose of preventing them from enjoying any of the rights or benefits provided under RA 8371. Republic Act No 8504 (“RA 8504”), Otherwise Known As The “Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act Of 1998” Under RA 8504, discrimination in any form from pre-employment to post-employment, including hiring, promotion or assignment, based on the actual, perceived or suspected human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status of a person is prohibited. Termination from work on the sole basis of actual, perceived or suspected HIV status is deemed unlawful.
Republic Act N° 8972 (“RA 8972”), Otherwise Known As The “Solo Parents Welfare Act Of 2000” RA 8972 provides that no employer shall discriminate against any solo parent (sometimes referred to as single parent) employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment on account of the employee’s status. http://www. internationalexperts. com/index. php/research/item/laws-on-employment-discrimination-in-the-philippines EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: AN OVERVIEW Employment Discrimination laws seek to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers. A growing body of law also seeks to prevent employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Discriminatory practices include bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, compensation, retaliation, and various types of harassment. The main body of employment discrimination laws consists of federal and state statutes.
The United States Constitution and some state constitutions provide additional protection when the employer is a governmental body or the government has taken significant steps to foster the discriminatory practice of the employer. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution limit the power of the federal and state governments to discriminate. The Fifth amendment has an explicit requirement that the federal government not deprive individuals of “life, liberty, or property,” without due process of the law. See U. S. Const. amend. V. It also contains an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prohibits states from violating an individual’s rights to due process and equal protection. See U. S. Const. amend. XIV.
In the employment context, the right of equal protection limits the power of the state and federal governments to discriminate in their employment practices by treating employees, former employees, or job applicants unequally because of membership in a group (such as a race or sex). Due process protection requires that employees receive a fair process before the termination if the termination relates to a “liberty” (such as the right to free speech) or property interest. State constitutions may also afford protection from employment discrimination. The Constitution does not directly constrain discrimination in the private sector, but the private sector has become subject to a growing body of federal and state statutes. Federal Employment Statutes Prohibiting Discrimination Section 1981 of the U. S.
Code provides additional federal remedies to deter harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace. Amended in 1991, § 1981 provides the requisite elements for proving a disparate impact claim and permits a jury to award compensatory and punitive damages in situations of intentional discrimination. Further, the U. S. Supreme Court has recently interpreted § 1981 to imply a private cause of action for race-based retaliation claims. A race-based retaliation claim is one in which an employer has retaliated against an employee for having previously filed a complaint of racial-discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship.
It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in relation to hiring, discharging, compensating, or providing the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. The Act also prohibits labor organizations from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The Nineteenth Century Civil Rights Acts, amended in 1993, ensure all persons equal rights under the law and outline the damages available to complainants in actions brought under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Equal Pay Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1963. The Equal Pay Act prohibits employers and unions from paying different wages based on the employee’s sex. It does not prohibit other discriminatory hiring practices. It provides that if workers perform equal work in jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility . . . performed under similar working conditions,” the workers must receive equal pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act applies to employees engaged in some aspect of interstate commerce or all of an employer’s workers if the enterprise engages as a whole in a significant amount of interstate commerce.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of age. The prohibited practices closely parallel those outlined in Title 7 and protects employees over the age of 40 from discrimination. The ADEA contains explicit guidelines for benefit, pension, and retirement plans. During the 2007-2008 term, the U. S. Supreme Court clarified the statute in three distinct areas. First,disparate impact claims filed under the ADEA now require proof of discriminatory motive behind the plan or scheme that has created the alleged disparate impact. A disparate impact claim is a claim that an employer has created a plan or scheme that on its face seems neutral but in actuality discriminates on the basis of age.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof with regard to this element. Second, employees who submit an “Intake Questionnaire” to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for review within 60 days of an alleged ADEA violation have met the statute of limitations requirement and may later bring suit in court. A formal charge does not need to have been filed. Third, a plaintiff-employee can now bring a private suit for retaliation under the ADEA against federal employers. These private causes of action are reserved for plaintiff-employees who have experienced retaliation because the plaintiff-employee previously filed an age discrimination claim.
The Rehabilitation Act’s aims to “promote and expand employment opportunities in the public and private sectors for handicapped individuals,” through the elimination of discrimination and affirmative action programs. Employers covered by the Act include agencies of the federal government and employers receiving federal contracts over $2500 or federal financial assistance. The Department of Labor enforces section 793 of the Act, which refers to employment under federal contracts. The Department of Justice enforces section 794 of the Act, which refers to organizations receiving federal assistance. TheEEOCenforces the act against federal employees and individual federal agencies that promulgate regulations pertaining to the employment of the disabled.
Congress enacted the American with Disabilities Act to eliminate discrimination against those with handicaps. It prohibits discrimination based on a physical or mental handicap by employers engaged in interstate commerce and state governments. ADA prohibits discrimination more broadly than that explicitly outlined by Title VII. The Black Lung Act prohibits discrimination by mine operators against miners who suffer from “black lung” (pneumoconiosis). The EEOC interp rets and enforces the Equal Payment Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and sections of the Rehabilitation Act. The Commission was established by Title VII.
Section 2000e-5 of Title 42 contains its enforcement provisions, and Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 1614 contains its regulations and guidelines. State statutes also provide extensive protection from employment discrimination, with some laws extending similar protection as provided by the federal acts to employers who are not covered by those statutes. Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. A number of state statutes provide protection for individuals who are performing civil or family duties outside of their normal employment. Bottom of Form http://www. law. cornell. edu/wex/employment_discrimination
Avoiding discrimination in the hiring process, laws that define discriminatory acts permeate not only every aspects of the hiring process, but nearly every employment related decision and action there after. Kurther , hospitality organizations have increasingly become the target of the costly and time consuming litigation by a less company minded labor force. The hiring process is the first of three stages of legal liability for an employers discriminatory action during employment actions are the second and termination of employment is the third. It is the hiring process that gives each employer initial exposure to causes for applications to file discrimination complaints. The exposure arises out of two sources.
First todays labor force is keenly aware of employment law such as discrimination and required employer actions; and Second because each phase of the hiring process remain something of a subjective judgement call by employers how often are not aware of the nuances of how a particular hiring activity might be influenced by discrimination law. Given the fact that most employment related discrimination results from the unintentional acts of employers, the proper starting place for employers is to learn more about preventing the occurrence and or likelihood taking place. (Cullen, 2001) The review of related literatures help the reseachers to understand more about their chosen topic. It gives more information and knowledge to the researcher that will totally facilitate for their study.