The Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation free essay sample

The Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation and the United Steelworkers of America entered into an agreement to reserve 50% of the openings in an in plant craft training program for African Americans (Byars amp; Rue,  2008). Brian F. Weber was a white male who wanted to enter this program but was denied. Weber claimed he was discriminated against due to the fact that African American employees were accepted into a training program over senior white employees. Mr. Weber had seniority over the black workers that were being admitted into a training program. He claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Before this program was established Kaiser only hired craft workers with prior experience, these workers were mostly white. The necessary training was usually only available through craft unions which at that time excluded blacks (Lempert,  1984). * Court’s ruling The Court ruled that Kaiser’s affirmative action plan was acceptable because it â€Å"was designed to break down old patterns of segregation† (Byars amp; Rue,  2008, p. 33). At the time of this landmark case the legacy of slavery could still be felt by many African Americans. The proportionate underrepresentation of black people in positions of power and privilege may plausibly be traced to this legacy† (Lempert,  1984, p. 86). This caused some Kaiser to create arrangements to repair the imbalance of African American workers in the workforce. Secondly, the court ruled that the affirmative action plan â€Å"did not involve the discharge of innocent third parties† (Byars amp; Rue,  2008, p. 33). Kaiser did not have to release or lay-off any current employees in order to place African Americans in the training program and openings. Also the affirmative action plan â€Å"did not have any barriers to the advancement of white employees† (Byars amp; Rue,  2008, p. 33). The white employees were still able to participate in the program with an equal representation of black employees. Finally it â€Å"was a temporary measure to eliminate discrimination† (Byars amp; Rue,  2008, p. 33). The program would only run until the percentage of blacks in the skilled trades resembled the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. ‘Racial preferences were to be discontinued upon elimination of the racial imbalance† (Simon, p. 139). Despite the Weber case not establishing a formula for future cases the case is used as model for future cases. â€Å"Voluntary affirmative action efforts which grant employment preferences for protected persons but do not comply with the Weber criteria will be deemed unlawful by the courts† (Simon, p. 142). Thus, this decision provided important guidelines for determining the legality of an affirmative action plan. * Implications for Kaiser and businesses in general * * Kaiser must make sure to follow the outline of their affirmative action plan as it was designed to maintain its legality. Most importantly, once the goal of increasing African American representation in the workplace is achieved the program should be disbanded. If they were to continue the plan after the goal was achieve, Mr. Weber would have a base for his reverse discrimination case. Employers must documents and keep track of records that can be used to determine if unlawful employment have or are being committed. * * * Legal precedence * Many other cases have tried to use the United Steelworkers of America v. Weber to challenge or uphold voluntary affirmative action suits. The Weber case has taught employers that it is permissible to use voluntary affirmative action to help diminishes the imbalance created in traditionally segregated jobs. â€Å"Subsequent court decisions have failed to establish a specific formula which defines the type or quantum of job segregation which would justify voluntary affirmative action† (Simon, p. 139). Judges have made a case by case ruling on similar cases. In cases like La Riviere v. EEOC, Baker v. City of Detroit and, Detroit Police Officers Assn. v. Young judges have determined that the resulting job segregation justified the use of voluntary affirmative action as an appropriate remedy â€Å"Employers who fail to initiate such preferences (commonly referred to as affirmative action) to remedy past discrimination face possible loss of federal government contracts and liability to minorities or women† (Simon, p. 138). * * Federal enforcement agency’s role in compliance to regulation standards The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is one of two primary enforcement agencies for equal employment opportunity. They have the authority to initiate litigation and to intervene in private litigation. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published affirmative action guidelines; designating the circumstances under which the EEOC will not find employers who take voluntary affirmative action liable in reverse discrimination cases (Simon, n. d. ). The written guidelines serve as a â€Å"written interpretation or opinion of EEOC within the meaning of Section 713(b)- (i) of Title VII, Therefore, good faith reliance upon the guidelines will be a defense to reverse discrimination claims (Simon, p. 43). These guidelines are to be posted by the employer for the reason that â€Å"willful failure to display it is punishable by a fine of not more than $100 for each offense† (Byars amp; Rue,  2008, p. 44). Employers with over one hundred employees are required to file a standard form also known as the Employer Information Report. To facilitate employers meet compliance guidelines the EEOC has compliance manuals available online in web and PDF formats. The compliance manual discusses race and color discrimination. Protected areas are address and a system to evaluate employment decisions is offered. Equal access to jobs through recruitment, hiring, promotions, and diversity is presented in the manual. The manual also helps the employer in developing a plan to create job success through developing an understanding to racial harassment, biases, and retaliation in the work place. Finally, the EEOC offer remedies the employer can implement to achieve compliance. Conclusion Discrimination is permissible under title VII as a temporary measure to remedy eliminate a previous discrimination.  Employers are responsible for understanding the law and adhering to compliance guidelines.