Ending Racism and Discrimination in theUnited StatesAbst

Ending Racism and Discrimination in the
United States
Abstract
Overview
Applications
Viewpoints
Terms & Concepts
Bibliography
Suggested Reading
Abstract
This article addresses the prospect of ending racism and
discrimination in the United States. It begins by defining racism
and discrimination and differentiating individual prejudice from
institutional racism. It then reviews the extent of social change
that has lead to a decline, to an extent, in racism and
discrimination since the middle of the twentieth century, as well
as the continuing significance of racism and discrimination in
the lives of people of color. People have proposed various ways
of reducing or ending racism and discrimination. This article
reviews three such proposals: increased multicultural education,
reforms to the legal system, and radical social change. It also
considers the argument that eradicating racism and
discrimination
in the United States is impossible as well as the argument that

eradicating racism and discrimination is unnecessary.
Overview
When most people think about the term racism, they think of the
various attitudes and beliefs individuals may hold about
different
racial groups, particularly negative stereotypes about one or
more racial groups as well as the opinion that one's own racial
group is superior. To sociologists, this common understanding
of
racism is more accurately termed "prejudice." It is hard to get
a good sense of what percentage of Americans continue to hold
prejudiced views about other racial groups. When asked survey
questions about their opinions of other races, few Americans
give
answers that suggest that they hold prejudiced views, and these
figures have declined substantially since the mid-to-late
twentieth
century. However, there is evidence that surveys designed to
elicit
individuals' racist views suffer from something called
interviewer
effect. What this means is that when surveyors ask certain
questions, survey respondents will give what they believe are
the socially desirable responses rather than their actual beliefs
or
opinions.
Despite both the uncertainty about how many Americans
continue to hold racist views and the fact that the percentage
of Americans holding such views has declined over time,
racism continues to have significance in American life. In
addition to individual racism, institutional racism occurs within
organizations like the government, corporations, schools, and
law enforcement. While individual prejudice may result in a

person experiencing a racial slur or a hate crime, institutional
racism is responsible for many of the inequalities between racial
groups, such as poverty and segregation. Institutional racism
can continue even when there is no individual racist person
within an institution. Instead, institutional racism is manifested
in the policies and practices built into an institution that lead to
racist outcomes. For example, if a mortgage company redlined
a neighborhood forty years ago based on the fact that the
neighborhood was heavily Black, and if, as a consequence,
Black
Americans living in that neighborhood could not get mortgages
and could not sell their homes, that neighborhood today will
likely continue to be run down and have low property values—
even if the people working for the mortgage company today are
committed to racial equality.
Both individual prejudice and institutional racism can lead to
discrimination. Discrimination is what the group experiencing
the prejudice or institutional racism encounters. For instance, if
an individual who is prejudiced against Black Americans
refuses
to hire a Black employee, that individual has discriminated. For
the most part, racial discrimination is illegal in the
contemporary
EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © EBSCO Information
Services, Inc • All Rights Reserved
Page 1
United States. Individuals are permitted to think racist thoughts
and write racist texts, but they are not permitted to make
hiring decisions, sell real estate, or engage in other sorts of
differentiation on the basis of race. This legal prohibition does
not, however, mean that discrimination has ended. In order to

penalize an individual or a company for discrimination, the
person who has been discriminated against must prove not
only that discrimination occurred, but also that the individual
or company accused of discrimination intended to discriminate
(Crenshaw, 1995). This makes it very difficult for individuals to
win racial discrimination law suits.
Thus racial discrimination continues in many aspects of life
in the contemporary United States. For instance, in fiscal year
2007 alone, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) received over 30,000 charges of racial discrimination in
employment; in FY2012, this figure increased to over 33,000,
while in FY2020 the figure had decreased to 22,064. Other
areas of life in which racial discrimination continues to play
a particularly significant role include housing, the criminal
justice system, and health care. Disparities in health care
quality
and access, as well as income and housing, were especially
prominent during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic declared in early 2020, when it was noted by experts
and the media that people of color were disproportionately
negatively impacted by the pandemic. Yet despite the
continuing
significance of racial discrimination, discrimination had
declined
to an extent since the middle of the twentieth century.
In 1950, it was still completely legal for school districts
and schools to segregate education from kindergarten through
graduate school—if graduate schools were even available for
students of color. It was legal for real estate agents to refuse
to show homes or apartments to members of certain races, and
individuals could even write language into the deed of their
home prohibiting its sale to buyers of color. Classified ads for
employment could say "Whites only," and several states still
prohibited interracial marriage. Things have come a long way.

These changes did not come easily. They required concerted
efforts by social movements, lobbyists, religious leaders,
educators, and others. The civil rights movement of the 1950s
and 1960s played a key part in effecting the social changes
that led to the end of legal discrimination. For instance, the
leaders of the movement coordinated sit-ins and other acts of
civil disobedience that led to the desegregation of lunch
counters
and public transportation throughout the South. They also led
voter registration drives that helped elect Black candidates to
public office. These Black politicians then became instrumental
in passing laws that reduced discrimination. Among the crucial
legal gains of the civil rights movement were:
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited
discrimination based on race,
• The Voting Rights Act of 1965, which made it easier for
southern Black Americans to vote,
• Executive Order 11246, which established affirmative
action for government contractors,
• The Civil Rights Act of 1968, which specifically
prohibited housing discrimination.
Inspired by the civil rights movement, social movements
representing American Indians, Asian Americans, and Latinos
emerged during the 1960s and 1970s, and these movements
also pushed for an end to discrimination. Among other things,
these groups pushed immigration reform, changes in college
and university admissions policies, the honoring of treaties with
American Indian tribes, and the establishment of ethnic studies
departments that would expand knowledge and teaching about
people of color. Many—though far from all—of these goals

were
attained. For example, the US Supreme Court has ruled in favor
of affirmative action policies in higher education in three cases:
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke(1978), Gratz
v. Bollinger et al. (2003), and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) (Pitt
& Packard, 2012). It is important to not understate the gains
these movements made in reducing racism and discrimination
in the United States, but the problem has not disappeared. In
fact, the Supreme Court invalidated part of the Voting Rights
Act (1965) when they voted in June 2013 to allow nine states
to change their election laws without getting federal approval in
advance (Liptak, 2013). In 2013, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) was challenging changes in voting laws in
North Carolina, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, that the
ACLU says threaten the rights of voters including minority
voters (ACLU, 2013). In 2021, the ACLU identified ballot
access, voter suppression, voter restoration, the Voting Rights
Act, and gerrymandering as issues affecting equal voting rights
in the United States. Following the contentious 2020
presidential
election, even as some congressional lawmakers introduced bills
designed to restore such protective provisions as the one
nullified
by the Supreme Court in 2013, by 2021 several state lawmakers
were considering and introducing laws that could potentially
further suppress voting rights.
Applications
How to End Racism & Discrimination. If racism and
discrimination continue to make a significant impact on the
lives of people of color in the contemporary United States,
what can be done about it? Scholars and activists have made
several proposals. Some focus on the importance of education
and diversity or multiculturalism for changing the culture of
racism. Others point to legal reforms as a way to make it easier
to challenge acts of discrimination or institutional racism. A

third group argues for more substantial social change aimed at
repairing the effects of past discrimination. Finally, some
people
believe that racism has become such an integral part of the
fabric
of American society that it cannot be removed.
For the first group, racism and discrimination can be eliminated
through education. In particular, advocates of this perspective
include educators who are committed to multiculturalism and
diversity in their classrooms. Such educators believe that the
American society will eventually accept people of color as it
did White immigrant groups, and all that is needed is to educate
about difference and celebrating the diverse cultural
backgrounds
Page 2
that make up the United States. Advocates of this perspective
believe that multicultural education will change American
culture
to make it more inclusive. Affirmative action is one of the
specific policy proposals that multiculturalists propose. They
believe that affirmative action will lead to schools and
workplaces
that value diversity and individuals in such diverse
environments
will be able to overcome any prejudiced views they may hold.
In fact, there is evidence that exposure to diverse educational
circumstances may change the views of White students (Bowen
& Bok, 1998) and have a positive impact on all students (Pitt &
Packard, 2012). For the multiculturalists, education and

exposure
alone will create the changes necessary to rid American society
of racism and discrimination. This view, then, is focused on the
role of individual prejudice. Many scholars and activists note
that focusing only on individual prejudice ignores the
continuing
presence of institutional racism. As a result, their proposals aim
to change the institutional structures that enable discrimination
to continue.
Some believe that these changes can occur within the legal
system. As noted above, discrimination law requires that
allegations of discrimination prove discriminatory intent in
order to prevail in a court of law. In addition, allegations of
discrimination must prove that the discrimination occurred due
to
race itself, rather than some other factor related to race (such as
economic status or linguistic style). One scholar, Kenji
Yoshino,
proposed a different standard in his 2006 book Covering. He
argued that discrimination law should focus on discriminatory
outcomes rather than discriminatory intent. More importantly,
he
argued that discrimination law should be focused on providing
equality to all people, not just those who act, talk, or look like
majority groups.
Other scholars take this logic a step further. For them, changing
the legal system would be insufficient for eradicating racism
and
discrimination. Instead, they advocate more substantial social
and
political changes. The particular policy proposals such scholars
advance vary. For instance, in Whitewashing Race (2003)
Michael Brown and his coauthors advocated remedying the
legacy of past discrimination and establishing new government

agencies to respond to racism and discrimination. Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva advocated for the creation of a new civil rights
movement that would militantly challenge racism both "from
within" Whiteness and from outside of it (2004). Discussions
of reparations and the role that they could play in reducing
racial disparities also fall into this category (Darity & Meyers,
1998). Many social movement activists fit into this category as
well, since they advocate substantial social change to respond
to continuing racism and discrimination. This view was put
into practice in 2020, when social movement activists with the
Black Live Matter movement began a series of protests around
the country in response to the murder of an unarmed Black
man, George Floyd, by a White police officer. Their protests
against racial discrimination and call for police reform helped
lead to the officers involved in the man's death being arrested
and
charged. In April 2021, the officer who had knelt on Floyd's
neck,
Derek Chauvin, was found guilty on state murder charges before
being additionally brought up on federal charges and ultimately
sentenced to twenty-two and a half years in prison; while
activists
saw this judicial consequence as a step in the right direction,
they
also emphasized that there was much more work that needed to
be done to combat and rectify the roots of racism in the country.
Despite the often-radical proposals for social change that this
diverse group of scholars and activists has made, some people
believe that there is nothing that can be done to fully eradicate
racism and discrimination from US society, politics, and
culture.
For instance, Howard Winant has argued that the United States
was formed as a racist country on the backs of enslaved African
Americans (2002). While he affirmed that antiracist

mobilization
can and has continued to have an effect, he also argued that
pervasive racial inequality and the racial consciousness behind
individual prejudice and discriminatory acts will not disappear.
While this position may appear to be fatalistic, most scholars
who
believe in the persistence of racism do still advocate for social
movements and progressive social change aimed at eradicating
racism and discrimination.
Viewpoints
Ignoring Racism & Discrimination. Not everyone agrees that
racism and discrimination are a continuing problem that
requires
a societal response. There are three main groups of people who
do not believe any response to racism is necessary. First, there
are the ideological racists. Second, there are libertarians. And
finally, there are those who believe the problems of racism and
discrimination have already been resolved and who thus
attribute
continuing racial disparities to other causes.
Both ideological racists and libertarians agree that racism and
discrimination are continuing realities in the lives of people of
color in the United States. Ideological racists, however, openly
defend racism and discriminatory practices. They believe that
racial groups are inherently unequal and that people should
be allowed to discriminate against groups they believe are
inferior. Libertarians, in contrast, are more likely to say that
they
ethically or morally disapprove of racism and discrimination.
However, libertarians also have an ideological commitment
to small government and a lack of government interference.
Therefore, they argue that even if racism and discrimination are
reprehensible, it is not a governmental responsibility to
eradicate

them.
The third group who believe that racism and discrimination do
not require a social or political response are those who believe
that the problems of racism and discrimination have already
been resolved. These people point to the gains of the civil rights
movement, the growing numbers of Black professionals and
members of the Black middle class, the declining numbers of
White people who are willing to publicly state racist views or
opinions, and such notable events as Barack Obama's
presidential
election as proof that racism has been overcome. Most people
who believe that racism is a thing of the past do admit that
sometimes discrimination occurs. However, they attribute such
discrimination to individuals from older generations or who
Page 3
have been improperly educated by parents who never gave up
their own racial beliefs. Give it another generation or two, their
argument goes, and discrimination will be a relic of the past as
well.
Some individuals who fall into this category may be unaware
of the continuing inequality between racial groups in the United
States. For instance, Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom (1997)
have argued that reports of racial inequality are exaggerated
by Black activists to increase public sympathy, and that, in
reality, disparities are small and primarily due to the actions
of illogical, prejudiced individuals. Many others, however, are
aware that Black Americans, Latinos, and American Indians
earn

less money, have less accumulated wealth, receive less
education,
have worse health care, are more likely to be involved with
the criminal justice system, and face many other aspects of
inequality. Instead of attributing these disparities to the
workings
of institutional racism, though, this group attributes them to a
variety of other factors, such as genetics or culture. For
instance,
when the Thernstroms do admit that racial disparities exist,
they argue that culture is responsible for their continuation.
They believe that Black Americans, particularly poor Black
Americans, have unique cultural values focused on dependency
and instant gratification that prevent them from resolving their
own economic problems. There is little evidence to support such
claims, but a few scholars and many conservative pundits and
politicians continued to make them into the 2020s. There is
one more defining factor relevant to this argument. Those who
argue that racism and discrimination are no longer problems in
contemporary American society also tend to argue that it is
public
discussions of race and racism that lead to what little persistent
racism there is. Thus, they say that people should avoid
collecting
data on race, measuring racism, or talking about these issues,
and instead focus their attention on issues such as economic
inequality and educational problems.
Brown and his coauthors (2003) call such individuals "color -
blind racists." Color-blind racists are individuals who believe
that racism is no longer a problem in society and believe that
they themselves do not see or act on race. Yet they continue
to live in a society that is racially stratified and to benefit
from this stratification. At a time when few people will openly
admit to racist opinions or beliefs, color-blind racists argue that
people should avoid talking further about race in order to effect

its complete disappearance. The evidence suggests, however,
that racism and discrimination are unlikely to disappear without
considerable effort on the part of antiracist activists—if it is
possible for them to disappear at all.
Terms & Concepts
Civil Rights Movement: The civil rights movement was a social
movement with the goal of gaining legal, social, and political
equality for Black Americans in the United States. The civil
rights
movement lasted roughly from 1955 to 1968. Many marches,
demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience were part of this
push towards desegregation and political rights.
Color-Blind Racism: According to Bonilla-Silva, a form of
racism more subtle than the overt racism of the past that allows
White people to maintain White racial privilege by denying the
continuing significance of race and racism in the lives of people
of color. Color-blind racism relies on the notions that racial
problems have been solved, that racial disparities are due to
culture or are inevitable, and that talking about race is
responsible
for creating racial problems.
Civil Disobedience: Deliberate, public, nonviolent acts that
violate a law, such as sit-ins, usually undertaken because of a
belief that the law in question is unjust.
Discrimination: Differentiating between individuals or groups
on the basis of prejudicial attitudes and beliefs rather than on
the basis of individual merit. Discrimination generally carries
the
connotation that one group is disadvantaged by such treatment
in
comparison to another.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):
The EEOC is a federal regulatory agency which was created
by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to monitor and
investigate claims of employment discrimination. The EEOC
is concerned with other types of discrimination besides race,
including gender and religion.
Ethnic Studies: Ethnic studies refers to a group of academic
disciplines that are concerned with the experiences and history
of
particular racial and ethnic groups. They include Black or
African
American studies, Asian American studies, Latino/Chicano
studies, and American Indian studies. Ethnic studies disciplines
have developed their own methodologies and literatures that
foreground the groups they study, and they have often retained
ties to communities and activists of color.
Institutional Racism: Structural factors like policies and
procedures that are built into organizations and institutions and
lead to racially disparate outcomes. Institutional racism can
continue even in the absence of any individuals holding racist
views or opinions.
Interviewer Effect: This term refers to any time when the results
of a survey, interview, or other social research instrument are
altered due to the presence of the researcher. Such situations
can
include interviewer bias or improper actions of the interviewer.
They can also include social desirability effects, when research
participants choose to answer questions in a way they believe
the
interviewer will approve of rather than sharing their true
feelings
or opinions.

Prejudice: Technically, prejudice refers to any instance in w hich
an individual makes a decision before they know all of the facts
and details relevant to that decision. However, the term is most
frequently used in reference to people having preconceived
ideas,
generally negative and unrelated to fact, about a parti cular
social
group.
Page 4
Privilege: Privilege refers to any special advantage or benefit
that some, but not all, people get. In the context of race, White
privilege refers to advantages or benefits that White people get
in society by virtue of their skin color and that are not available
to people of color.
Race: A system of stratification based on real or imagined
physical differences between groups that are believed to be
essential and permanent.
Racism: Racism refers to discrimination and other beliefs and
practices that assume differences between racial groups and/or
which lead to racially disparate outcomes for different racial
groups. Racism includes both individual racial prejudice and
institutional racism.
Redlining: An institutional policy and practice of not making
mortgages or other loans in specific neighborhoods because
these neighborhoods are seen as poor investments. While on
the surface the decision to redline an area may appear to be
based on the economic qualities or the property value of the

area, it has often been the case that redlined neighborhoods
are predominantly Black or multiracial or have growing Black
American populations. The term "redlining" comes from the
practice of outlining such neighborhoods on a map in red to
alert
lenders to the locations in which they should avoid making
loans.
Reparations: Reparations generally refers to any payment of
money in compensation for a past wrong. In the context of race
in the United States, discussions of reparations are generally
focused on whether or not Black Americans should be paid a
sum of money to compensate them for the harms their ancestors
suffered under slavery.
Segregation: The arrangement of groups into separate
geographical areas, schools, or other facilities based on race or
some other characteristic not related to individuals' own choices
and skills. Segregation can be maintained by law and policy or
it
can exist informally through the institutionalized actions of
social
groups.
Social Movement: An organized effort to create changes in
social, cultural, or political life by a group who is excluded
from
the power structure of society.
Stereotype: An exaggerated belief about a group of people
which
holds that all members of a group share the same characteristic.
Bibliography
American Civil Liberties Union (2007). Race & ethnicity

in America: Turning a blind eye to justice. Retrieved
November 14, 2013 from http://www.aclu.org/files/
pdfs/humanrights/cerd%5Fexecutive%5Fsummary.pdf
American Civil Liberties Union (2013). Voting rights: Your
vote, your voice. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from
https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights
American Civil Liberties Union (2021). Voting rights.
Retrieved July 29, 2021, from https://www.aclu.org/
issues/voting-rights
Bonilla-Silva, E. et. al. (2004). "I Did Not Get
that Job Because of a Black Man…": The
Story Lines and Testimonies of Color-Blind
Racism. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from
EBSCO Online Database Academic Search
Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=aph&AN=15809007&site=ehost-live
Bowen, W. G. & Bok, D. (1998) The shape of the river:
Long-term consequences of considering race in college
and university admissions. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton
University Press.
Brown, M. K. et al. (2003). Whitewashing race: The myth
of a color-blind society. : Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Burke, M. A. (2017). Racing left and right: color-
blind racism’s dominance across the U.S. political
spectrum. Sociological Quarterly, 58(2), 277–
294. doi:10.1080/00380253.2017.1296335.
Retrieved February 21, 2018, from
EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source
Ultimate. search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=sxi&AN=122298591&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020,
December 10). Introduction to COVID-19 racial and
ethnic health disparities. US Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved July 29, 2021, from https://
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/
health-equity/racial-ethnic-disparities/index.html
Chappell, Bill. (2021, June 25). Derek Chauvin is
sentenced to 22 1/2 years for George Floyd's
murder. NPR. Retrieved July 29, 2021, from https://
www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-
floyd/2021/06/25/1009524284/derek-chauvin-
sentencing-george-floyd-murder
Charge statistics (charges filed with EEOC) FY 1997
through FY 2020. US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Retrieved July 29, 2021 from https://
www.eeoc.gov/statistics/charge-statistics-charges-filed-
eeoc-fy-1997-through-fy-2020
Crenshaw, K. (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings
that formed the movement. New York: New Press.
Darity, W. A., Jr. & Meyers, S. L., Jr. (1998). Persistent
disparity: race and economic inequality in the United
States. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elger.
Page 5

Leonardo, Z., & Harris, A. P. (2013). Living with racism
in education and society: Derrick Bell’s ethical
idealism and political pragmatism. Race, Ethnicity
& Education, 16, 470–488. Retrieved November 19,
2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with
Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sih&AN=90430328
Liptak, A. (2013). Supreme Court invalidates key
parts of Voting Rights Act. New York Times.
Retrieved November 14, 2013 from http://
www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-
ruling.html?%5Fr=0
Pitt, R. N., & Packard, J. (2012). Activating diversity:
The impact of student race on contributions to
course discussions. Sociological Quarterly, 53,
295–320. Retrieved November 14, 2013 from
EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full
Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
Thernstrom, S. & Thernstrom, A. M. (1997). America in
black and white: One nation, indivisible. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.).
Race-based charges (charges filed with EEOC)
FY1997–FY2017. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/
race.cfm.
Williams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2013).
Racism and health I: pathways and scientific
evidence. American Behavioral Scientist, 57,

Winant, H. (2002). The world is a ghetto. New York: Basic
Books.
Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: The hidden assault on our
civil rights. New York: Random House.
Suggested Reading
Back, L. & Solomos, J. (2000). Theories of race and
racism: A reader. New York: Routledge.
Blank, R. M., Dabady, M., & Citro, C. F. (2004). Measuring
racial discrimination. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Jones, E. (2018). Racism, fines and fees and
the US carceral state. Race & Class, 59(3),
38–50. doi:10.1177/0306396817734785.
Retrieved February 21, 2018, from EBSCO
Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=sxi&AN=127118231&site=ehost-
live&scope=site
O'Brien, E., & Korgen, K. (2007, August). It's the
message, not the messenger: The declining
significance of Black-White contact in a
"colorblind" society. Sociological Inquiry, 77,
356–382. Retrieved August 24, 2008 from
EBSCO Online Database Academic Search
Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/logi n.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25641083&site=ehost-live
Lipsitz, G. (2006). The possessive investment in Whiteness.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
McIntosh, P. (1988) White privilege and male privilege: A
personal account of coming to see correspondences
through work in women's studies. Wellesley Centers
for Women. Working Paper Number 189.
Ponds, K. T. (2013). The trauma of racism: America's
original sin. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 22,
Rainey-Brown, S. A., Johnson, G. S., Latrice Richardson,
N. N., Stinson, T. G., & Ellis, N. P. (2012). New
American racism: A microcosm study of a small
town (Clarksville, Tennessee). Race, Gender & Class,
19(3/4), 266–291. Retrieved November 19, 2013
from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with
Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
Essay by Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur, PhD
Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur is an assistant professor of
sociology at Rhode Island College, where she teaches courses
in research methods, law & society, and race & ethnicity. She
has also taught courses in the sociology of education, social
movements, and the sociology of the Holocaust at New York
University, Hamilton College, and Queens College. She earned
her undergraduate degree at Mount Holyoke College and her
doctoral degree at New York University, and she has published
articles in Sociology Compass as well as numerous sociological

encyclopedia articles and book reviews.
Page 6
Copyright of Ending Racism & Discrimination in the U.S. --
Research Starters Sociology is
the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Copyright of Ending Racism & Discrimination in the U.S. --
Research Starters Sociology is
the property of Great Neck Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Table of ContentsEnding Racism and Discrimination in the
United StatesAbstractOverviewApplicationsViewpointsTerms &
ConceptsSuggested ReadingBibliography
The Top Five
FMLA

Compliance
Mistakes
That Could Land You in Court
The Top Five FMLA Compliance Mistakes That Could Land
You in Court
A slip of the tongue, a misplaced remark, the
wrong job assignment: managers make mistakes
every day. When the mistake involves FMLA, it can
cost your company big time in legal fees and land
you in court.
This report gives examples of common mistakes
your managers can make with FMLA decisions and
shows how to avoid them. Each section provides
examples of the problems your managers face with
FMLA regulations. Also included are lessons learned
that your managers can use to stop FMLA problems
before they start.
The Five FMLA Compliance Mistakes Line
Managers Make covers these common slip ups:

1) Taking “adverse action” against employees
returning from FMLA leave
2) Saying the wrong things when employees
request FMLA leave
3) Assuming that minor ailments don’t quality
for FMLA leave
4) Disclosing a worker’s private medical
information
5) Penalizing employees for unforeseeable
FMLA leave
Mistake # 1 - Taking ‘adverse
action’ against employees who
have taken FMLA leave
When an employee returns from FMLA leave,
FMLA regulations state that the returning employee
has to go back to the same job or one of equal pay,
responsibility, and benefits. Here are two scenarios
that show the potential pitfalls with returning
employees and “adverse action”.

Sometimes it’s easy to reintegrate an employee
after a three- or six-month FMLA leave. The person
was a top performer and you were really suffering
while she was gone. You’re delighted to have her
back.
But that’s not always the case, is it? Sometimes
when workers return from extended leave, it’s hard to
work them back in. Sometimes you’d just as soon the
person never came back at all. It’s circumstances
such as these that lead to retaliation lawsuits. Let’s
look at a couple scenarios:
Scenario 1
Mary, the company’s accounts payables manager,
takes three months pregnancy leave. Jane, who
replaced Mary, ends up doing the job better. Dave,
her supervisor, is thinking, “Why did I put up with
Mary for so long? She was incompetent and I didn’t
even realize it. When Jane took over for her while

Mary was on leave, Jane completely reorganized the
department and it now runs like a clock. So what am
I supposed to do? Put Mary back in charge? That’s
not in the best interests of the company. I think I’ll
just put Mary in another role and hope she’s happy.”
That could be wishful thinking. In this case it
invited a retaliation lawsuit against the company.
Mary said: “When I left I had a position of authority
and responsibility; now they’ve put me out to pasture
in a low-level role. Sure, my pay is the same, but it’s
not a ‘similar or equivalent’ position. This is
retaliation and I’m going to sue.”
Could Mary win? Yes, in fact she did, because the
company had no evidence of poor performance prior
to her taking leave.
How the supervisor slipped up: Dave didn’t have a
clear standard of excellence for Mary before she took
leave. She was doing a mediocre job and he didn’t
even know it. Mary had performance reviews stating

that she was meeting expectations all along; there
was no specific criticism of her work. Bottom line:
From the court’s perspective it appeared that at this
company the cost of having a baby is a demotion.
Remember, in court, companies almost always lose
“he said/she said” arguments. Employees get the
benefit of the doubt. No matter how sincere, or right,
Dave may have been, the lack of documentation left
the courts with no choice but to rule in Mary’s favor.
Copyright 2010 Rapid Learning Institute Page 1
You in Court
Lesson learned for Managers
When a person takes FMLA leave, you’re
extremely vulnerable to a retaliation lawsuit if you
don’t return an employee to the same position she had
before. Or at least an equivalent one. Effectively

demoting Mary was dangerous and this company paid
the price.
How careful do you have to be with someone
returning from FMLA leave? Very. But the courts do
not want to dictate how you run your business. You
can fire or demote a person if you can prove that you
would have taken the same action regardless of
whether or not she took leave.
If Dave had documented Mary’s poor performance
in the months prior to her taking leave, he could very
likely have demoted her when she returned from
leave. Here’s an example where the company played
its cards right:
Scenario 2
Bill was out on leave for six months for a major
health crisis. When he returned to work he was still
not 100%. He couldn’t lift things as well as before.
He wasn’t as focused, and he tired easily. Fact is, he

couldn’t perform his old job at the level he used to,
and others in the department wouldn’t tolerate sub-par
performance.
Bill’s boss, Jackie, carefully documented Bill’s
inability to handle the basic tasks of the job. She
talked many times with Bill about his deficiencies
and finally offered to transfer him to another position
that was much less demanding. He refused to take it.
So Jackie fired him. Bill then sued for violation of his
FMLA rights.
Bill’s argument to the judge was that, “They got
angry because I took leave and now they’re punishing
me.” In many cases, that argument wins a lot of
sympathy in court. After all, the person may have
been on leave due to a life-threatening illnesses or the
loss of a loved one; then they come back to work and
get fired.
The company appears cold, heartless and

opportunistic.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t fire people after
they take leave. We’ve seen many cases where
companies got away with it, but only when they
proved that the person would have been fired even if
he hadn’t taken FMLA leave.
In the case described above, the company won.
Why? Because the courts will not force a company to
employ a person who can’t physically perform a job.
And Jackie very carefully documented that Bill
wasn’t up to snuff. In the end, the courts believed that
the company would have transferred Bill whether or
not he took leave.
That’s the standard you need to meet. Would you
have taken the “adverse action” anyway? If so,
you’ve got a strong case in court.
As a measure of good faith, it didn’t hurt that
Jackie offered Bill another position.

Mistake #2 - Saying the wrong
things when employees
request FMLA leave
Saying the wrong thing to an employee regarding
FMLA can be one of the quickest ways to a lawsuit.
Below are the two responses you shouldn’t use and
the correct response.
An employee comes to you and says she needs to
take FMLA leave because she has a back condition.
What should you say?
Correct: I’m sorry to hear you’re not feeling well. I
suggest you go to the doctor and get yourself treated.
And get me a note from your doctor, including a
diagnosis. I’ll pass that on to the HR department.
Not correct: You know, your timing couldn’t be
worse. Your colleagues are really counting on you
right now. Are you sure you can’t stay on a few more
days?
You in Court
Not correct: I saw you lifting boxes just yesterday.

You didn’t seem to be having any problems. Are you
sure you’re really ailing?
The last two responses set you up for a retaliation
lawsuit. The FMLA gives employees the right to
make their own health and well-being a higher
priority than the productivity goals of their company.
Sure, it’s very hard when an employee takes time off
during a crunch. It’s also true that you’ll occasionally
have a malingerer who will exaggerate a minor injury
and let you down.
But you’re in no position to decide whether an
illness is real or not. Only a doctor can do that. The
minute you, as a manager or supervisor, make
judgments about whether a person’s ailments are real
or not, you’ve given the employee ammunition in a
retaliation lawsuit should you ever take an adverse
action against the person.
The “correct” response is dispassionate,
compassionate and non-judgmental. It treats the

employee with dignity and respect. And it will never
come back to haunt you.
Mistake #3 - Assuming that
‘minor ailments’ don’t qualify
for FMLA leave
Don’t make your own call about what constitutes
an illness? FMLA regulations have done that for you.
Surely a case of the flu wouldn’t qualify a worker
for FMLA leave, would it?
It could. The law says that a “serious health
condition” is one that requires three consecutive days,
72 hours or more, of leave, and at least two in-person
treatments by a health care professional. A number of
courts have ruled that an ailment like the flu can be
considered severe.
Scenario
Dave has the flu and stays out two days, then
returns to work on the third day. Two days later he
calls in sick again for another day. During the two

weeks that follow he comes in late and leaves work
early several times without providing notice. When
questioned, Dave says he was attending doctor’s
appointments to treat his condition. Dave’s boss,
Rick, thinks Dave is malingering and fires him for
violating the company’s strict attendance policy. Dave
sues, claiming that because he was out for three days,
he qualifies for FMLA leave and the company can’t
fire him.
Dave lost this case because his absences weren’t
consecutive, which means his illness didn’t qualify as
a “serious health condition.”
Lesson learned for Supervisors and
Managers
Don’t let employees try and tell you that they
qualify for FMLA leave because their ailment
required three days of leave that weren’t consecutive.
Mistake #4 - Disclosing private
medical information about an

employee
Never disclose confidential medical information to
anyone but the HR department or your direct report in
the chain of command
Supervisors who handle FMLA leave requests learn
about employees’ medical problems. This information
is private and you’re expected to keep it that way.
Scenario
Ed had been Bruce’s manager for several years,
and it pained him to learn that Bruce was HIV-
positive. While Bruce was out on leave, Ed
mentioned Bruce’s condition to another senior
colleague, whom he expected to be discreet about it.
But the day Bruce returned to work he stormed into
Ed’s office and complained that “everyone in the
You in Court

company knows I’ve got AIDS.” Bruce ended up
suing the company for violating his privacy. He won.
How the supervisor slipped up
Pure and simple, Ed blabbed. The company tried to
argue that as a result of the news becoming public,
people rallied around Bruce and there wasn’t a single
incident of bias or negativity. The courts weren’t
impressed. The company also argued that Bruce
disclosed the information “voluntarily” on his request
for FMLA leave. But, it turned out, Ed had told him if
he didn’t put the reason for the leave on the request,
he’d be subject to discipline.
Mum’s the word when it comes to any information
you may have about an employee’s medical or
psychological condition.
Mistake #5 - Not recognizing
the nature of ‘unforeseeable
leave’

Events happen in our lives that we can’t control.
But knowing the dividing line what is or isn’t
foreseeable with FMLA issues can help your
company avoid problems and lawsuits.
Most companies have policies that require
employees to give reasonable notice when they intend
to take family or medical leave. The FMLA
recognizes that this is only fair to employers, who
need to make adjustments when employees are absent.
Scenario 1 - foreseeable leave
Diane walks into your office and tells you she
intends to have elective surgery the next day, and that
she’ll be out of work for a week recovering. You
recognize that this is a violation of your company
policy, which requires two weeks’ advance notice for
foreseeable leave. Diane’s absence will throw your
entire department into chaos because you have no one
to replace her, and you’re angry. So you tell Diane

that if she takes the leave on such short notice, you’ll
have to fire her.
Can she sue you for FMLA retaliation? Sure, but
she probably won’t win. The courts will likely rule
that her leave was foreseeable and she violated your
policy. Barring other circumstances, she has no case.
Scenario 2 - unforeseeable leave
John gets in a car accident and suffers a head
injury. His wife calls you the same day to report
John’s condition and tells you he’ll likely be out at
least two weeks. She calls you continually during the
following days to report on John’s progress. In a case
like this John is fully protected by the FMLA.
Scenario 3 - ‘gray area’
Steve’s wife is a few days past her due date to
deliver her first child. So Steve calls Will, his
supervisor, to request FMLA leave to care for his
pregnant wife. Will says no. Steve misses nine

consecutive shifts and Will fires him. Steve sues the
company for denying his legitimate FMLA leave,
claiming that his leave was “unforeseeable” because
his wife was unexpectedly overdue and he couldn’t
predict when she was going to deliver. How do you
think the court ruled?
The court found that Steve violated the company’s
attendance policy and deserved to be fired. His wife,
though she was a couple weeks late delivering, had a
normal pregnancy with no complications. There was
no unforeseeable medical emergency. Steve was
trying to bend the rules.
Knowing the dividing line is between “foreseeable”
and “unforeseeable” FMLA leave means the
difference between winning and losing in court.

Skip to main content
An official website of the United States government.
Here’s how you know
Here’s how you know
The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before
sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal
government site.
The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official
website and that any information you provide is encrypted and
transmitted securely.
U.S. Department of Labor

Search
submenu
TOPICS
BackTopicsAmerican Rescue PlanCareers at DOLCoronavirus
ResourcesDisability ResourcesDisaster Recovery

AssistanceElawsEqual Employment
OpportunityEvidenceGrantsGuidance SearchHealth Plans and
BenefitsHiringRegistered ApprenticeshipIndustry-Recognized
Apprenticeship Programs (IRAP)International Labor IssuesJob
CorpsLabor RelationsLeave BenefitsMajor Laws of DOLOther
BenefitsPostersRetirement Plans, Benefits and SavingsSpanish-
Language
ResourcesStatisticsTerminationTrainingUnemployment
InsuranceVeterans EmploymentWagesWhistleblower
ProtectionWhite House Task Force on Worker Organizing and
EmpowermentWork HoursWorkers' CompensationWorkplace
Safety and HealthYouth and Labor
Key TopicsBreaks and Meal PeriodsContinuation of Health
Coverage - COBRAFMLA (Family and Medical Leave)Full-
Time EmploymentAGENCIES
BackAgenciesOffice of the Secretary (OSEC)Administrative
Review Board (ARB)Benefits Review Board (BRB)Bureau of
International Labor Affairs (ILAB)Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB)Employment
and Training Administration (ETA)Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA)Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)Office of Administrative Law Judges
(OALJ)Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
(OCIA)Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP)Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP)Office of
Inspector General (OIG)Office of Labor-Management Standards
(OLMS)Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and
Management (OASAM)Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Policy (OASP)Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO)Office of the Solicitor (SOL)Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs (OWCP)Ombudsman for the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
(EEOMBD)Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS)Wage and
Hour Division (WHD)Women's Bureau

(WB)FORMSFAQABOUT US
BackAbout UsAgencies and ProgramsMeet the Secretary of
LaborLeadership TeamBudget, Performance and
PlanningCalendarHistoryPrivacy ProgramRecursos en
EspañolNEWS
BackNewsNewsroomNews ReleasesBlogEconomic Data from
the Department of LaborEmail NewsletterCONTACT US
Search
Search

Breadcrumb
HomeAbout Us
Rubric Assignment 1 Management Team Briefing on
Employment Laws
Include cover, agenda, conclusion, and reference list slides, all
of which may count toward total slide count.--
Levels of Achievement:
Unacceptable 0 (0.00%) points

Needs Improvement 13.125 (7.50%) points
Competent 14.875 (8.50%) points
Exemplary 17.5 (10.00%) points
Provide a 2–3 slide overview of employment law based on
information found in Chapter 1 of Employment Law for Human
Resource Practice. Note: You may use your discretion to decide
which information needs to be addressed as long as your
overview is descriptive and relevant.--
Include in remaining slides all other required presentation
information.--
Use at least four quality academic references.--
Writing mechanics, grammar, and formatting.--
Appropriate use of in-text citations and a reference section.--

Information literacy and integration of sources.--
Clarity and coherence of writing.--
MANAGEMENT TEAM BRIEFING ON EMPLOYMENT LAWS
Management Team Briefing on Employment Laws
Overview
In your new role as chief human resources officer (CHRO) for a
major retail organization, you have been tasked by the CEO to
conduct a presentation to the management team on employment
law awareness within your first 30 days. The CEO informed you
that under the previous CHRO, the company was subject to
legal action resulting from lack of knowledge of employment
law, which had unfavorable outcomes. Avoiding similar
experiences is a high priority, and your thorough presentation to
the management team is the first big step to success.
Instructions
Prepare a 17–25 slide PowerPoint presentation in which you:
1. Include cover, agenda, conclusion, and reference list slides,
all of which may count toward the total slide count.
2. Provide a 2–3 slide overview of employment law based on
information found in Chapter 1 of Employment Law for Human
Resource Practice. Note: You may use your discretion to decide
which information needs to be addressed as long as your

overview is descriptive and relevant.
3. Include in the remaining slides the following required
presentation information:
. Provide a three-slide minimum covering at least six strong
bullet points highlighting a discussion on the roles of employees
and employers in terms of determining employment
relationships.
bullet points highlighting a discussion on the concept of
employment discrimination.
bullet points highlighting a discussion on the types of
discrimination.
bullet points highlighting a discussion on retaliation.
· Please use at least four quality academic resources for this
assignment. Note: You may only use the resources provided.
Important Notes: The number of words in the bullet points is
less important than the quality of the information. Detailed
information should be included in the presenter's notes.
Presentations must have a businesslike, professional look.
.
The specific course learning outcome associated with this
assignment is:
· Create a briefing on employment laws.

Ending Racism and Discrimination in theUnited StatesAbst

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ending Racism and Discrimination in theUnited StatesAbst

Similar to Ending Racism and Discrimination in theUnited StatesAbst (6)

More from TanaMaeskm

More from TanaMaeskm (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ending Racism and Discrimination in theUnited StatesAbst