Running head: AFFIRMATION ACTION RESEARCH 1 AFFIRMATION ACTION RESEARCH 2 Affirmation Action Research Name of Student HRMT 602 Employment Law and Labor Relations Name of Professor November 25, 2018 Research on Legal Articles and Cases Peer-Reviewed Articles for Discussion Fernandes, L., & Alsaeed, N. (2014). African Americans and workplace discrimination. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 56-76. Fernandes & Alsaeed (2014) present two arguments regarding affirmative action. It presents affirmative action as a concept that receives different emotions from different people. People look at affirmative action as a euphemism. Those who support it perceive it as being an enlightened imperative for the achievement of social justice. Sometimes, people may view it as being accusatory and overheated. Affirmative action looks at inequality and injustice and ways to eliminate them. Affirmative action ensures the elimination of stranglehold regarding social discrimination. Affirmative action revolves around the aspect of considering race in decision making, mostly in areas focusing on employment. Everyone should view affirmative action as a voluntary approach. Its implementation in the professional environment depends on the employers’ good will. They can choose the aspect of either considering racial discrimination or racial equality in the hiring and promotion process. This creates questions relating to making it mandatory. Most freedoms associated with affirmative action involve doing good deeds. However, the implementation of affirmative action possesses its limits. The main reason is that affirmative action plans lead to the unfair penalization of unprotected employees (Fernandes & Alsaeed, 2014). The Civil Rights Act (Title VII) monitors the application of voluntary actions which must conform to its stipulations. The article ensures that it motivates affirmative action programs deteriorating into forums which influence reverse discrimination. It is legal to implement duties that lead to reasonable accommodations for different employees. The argument presented by the article may be understood as supporting the employers in fighting against affirmative action. Giving employers the power to choose employees from goodwill is the same as promoting racial discrimination. It means that employers should not uphold laws focusing on equality in their workplaces. Creta, M. (2014). The accommodation of last resort: The Americans with Disabilities Act and reassignments. BCL Rev., 55, 1693. The second article revolves around affirmative actions and disability among people. It tries to create an argument focusing on making affirmative action mandatory regarding disabled individuals receiving equal rights in the workplace. It supports affirmative action as a way to eliminate.

1. Running head: AFFIRMATION ACTION RESEARCH
1
AFFIRMATION ACTION RESEARCH
2
Affirmation Action Research
Name of Student
HRMT 602 Employment Law and Labor Relations
Name of Professor
November 25, 2018
Research on Legal Articles and Cases
Peer-Reviewed Articles for Discussion
Fernandes, L., & Alsaeed, N. (2014). African Americans and
workplace discrimination. European Journal of English
Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 56-76.
Fernandes & Alsaeed (2014) present two arguments regarding
affirmative action. It presents affirmative action as a concept
that receives different emotions from different people. People
look at affirmative action as a euphemism. Those who support it
perceive it as being an enlightened imperative for the
achievement of social justice. Sometimes, people may view it as
being accusatory and overheated. Affirmative action looks at
inequality and injustice and ways to eliminate them. Affirmative
action ensures the elimination of stranglehold regarding social
discrimination. Affirmative action revolves around the aspect of
considering race in decision making, mostly in areas focusing
on employment. Everyone should view affirmative action as a
voluntary approach. Its implementation in the professional

2. environment depends on the employers’ good will. They can
choose the aspect of either considering racial discrimination or
racial equality in the hiring and promotion process. This creates
questions relating to making it mandatory.
Most freedoms associated with affirmative action involve doing
good deeds. However, the implementation of affirmative action
possesses its limits. The main reason is that affirmative action
plans lead to the unfair penalization of unprotected employees
(Fernandes & Alsaeed, 2014). The Civil Rights Act (Title VII)
monitors the application of voluntary actions which must
conform to its stipulations. The article ensures that it motivates
affirmative action programs deteriorating into forums which
influence reverse discrimination. It is legal to implement duties
that lead to reasonable accommodations for different employees.
The argument presented by the article may be understood as
supporting the employers in fighting against affirmative action.
Giving employers the power to choose employees from goodwill
is the same as promoting racial discrimination. It means that
employers should not uphold laws focusing on equality in their
workplaces.
Creta, M. (2014). The accommodation of last resort: The
Americans with Disabilities Act and reassignments. BCL Rev.,
55, 1693.
The second article revolves around affirmative actions and
disability among people. It tries to create an argument focusing
on making affirmative action mandatory regarding disabled
individuals receiving equal rights in the workplace. It supports
affirmative action as a way to eliminate adverse issues affecting
employability of the disabled. Since racial discrimination is
considered a sensitive issue, modern society equates it to the
treatment of disability. People of color have in the past and

3. currently been discriminated in the employment sector. The
same trend has been seen among people with disability. The
situation has led to Congress introducing the American
Disability Act (ADA) which forces employers’ to make
reasonable accommodations for individuals having disabilities.
The Disability Civil Rights Law eliminates the caste system by
letting employers provide equal incentives to people without
disabilities and those who are disabled (Creta, 2014). Disabled
people have a productive status like the rest of the employees.
Diminishing their personality due to their physical disability
affects not only their performance but also their mental well-
being. Such individuals may become depressed and may end up
being suicidal.
The above factor means that the removal of disability
hampering effect enables the employer, society, and the
employee to benefit. Through the comprehension of affirmative
action, one may analogize race and disability cases.
Stereotypes, mental/physical impairments, and failure to
understand disabled people bar them from attaining their
desired employment positions. The experience is the same as
that of African Americans failing to achieve employment
opportunities due to racial stereotypes and their environments.
The article looks at the disadvantages of disability as created by
the society and puts them as one framework known as racial
disabilities induced by the society. The objective of the article,
in summary, is to provide people with disabilities with an
opportunity to acquire equal employment opportunities like any
other candidate.
Barnes, L. (2015). How Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and
Class Action Waivers Undermine Consumer Rights and Why We
Need Congress to Act. Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev., 9,, 329.
The role of Congress is important in the subject of making

4. affirmative action mandatory in the United States. It creates an
argument of the minimal role played by Congress in supporting
the mandatory implementation of affirmative action. Despite
significant bias launched against groups considered to be
minorities such as African Americans and citizens with
disability in the United States, policy has failed to address the
issue. Congress has failed to establish an analogous duty in the
accommodation of African Americans in the professional
environment. This has been through failing to make affirmative
action mandatory. There are many reasons for the current
inaction of Congress. The first reason revolves around many in
Congress that oppose affirmative action. The opposition exists
both on practical and moral grounds (Barnes, 2015). The second
reason is due to Congress responding to different popular
sentiment, most of which opposes affirmative action focusing
on race. Congress may be more responsive to issues and needs
of the disabled as compared to racial discrimination.
The main reason is due to physical disabilities having a more
visible status than racism. Racial discrimination acts as a
construct of the society, and it may be difficult to notice unless
one becomes a perpetrator and a victim. The race serves as a
constitutionally suspect classification while disability does not.
The situation sees Congress failing to establish a
general/specific duty for all private employers to comply with
plans associated with affirmative action (Barnes, 2015).
Congress has the power to formulate laws that are friendly to
the racial discrimination issue occurring in the employment
sector. However, it chooses to do otherwise. If the most
powerful institution in the land fails to uphold plans of
affirmative action, then it means that the minority groups in
society are left to tackle their challenges by themselves.
Priest, N., Esmail, A., Kline, R., Rao, M., Coghill, Y., &
Williams, D. (2015). Promoting equality for ethnic minority

5. NHS staff—what works? Bmj, 351, h3297.
The above discussions lead to the benefits associated with
making affirmative action mandatory through law and practice.
Priest, et al. (2015) present a deeper comprehension of the best
approaches to employ using affirmative action for the
employment sector. Affirmative action goes beyond recruitment
and outreach. People have to understand that it includes diverse
efforts that prevent discrimination. Eliminating barriers leading
to equal opportunities in employment is significant. History has
shown that the benefits associated with affirmative action are
always meant to improve the development of a society. The
Executive Order is one of the incentives that have been made in
the past to prohibit discrimination in the United States.
Essentially, affirmative action establishes an environment
possessing equal opportunity. It ensures that equality prevails in
any environment of implementation. When affirmative action is
made mandatory, it means that the professional environment
will always ensure that they promote it through their
employment incentives and practices.
Employers may not take advantage of their power to
discriminate employees and applicants because of fearing that
the law may catch up with them. As a mandated approach in the
employment discrimination litigation, affirmative action
possesses compensatory status. It may serve as a remedy to
discriminations employed in the past (Priest, et al., 2015). The
article looks at the process of making affirmative action
mandatory as the only solution to ending discrimination and the
prevention of its reoccurrence. It looks at the situation as a way
through which to establish new opportunities for minority
groups. The article looks at the new millennium as a period of
creating a dynamic change and creating laws that cement
affirmative action in the development of society.

6. Case Studies related to Affirmative Action and Employment
Ricci v. DeStefano
The first case focuses on Ricci v. DeStefano. The legal case
raised questions regarding various steps undertaken by
employers in avoiding discrimination against a specific group.
The City of New Haven undertook an examination of a civil
service associated with fire department proportions. The
outcomes of the exams included racially disproportionate
results. White candidates were favored over African American
candidates. The situation led to New Haven failing to certify the
examination. Ricci and colleagues with higher scores on the
examination and with eligibility for promotion were mistreated.
They sued New Haven mayor, John DeStefano, for racial
discrimination among the candidates that had higher scores
(Legal Information Institute, 2009). Summary judgment was
issued by New Haven and affirmed by the Second Circuit. Ricci
and fellow petitioners felt that the city had discriminated
against them by violating Title VII and Equal Protection Clause.
New Haven had a different claim which included complying
with Title VII in the certification of the exam. The above factor
meant that it did not violate either Title VII or the Equal
Protection Clause. The federal district court gave summary
judgment to DeStefano. It dismissed the various claims raised
by Ricci regarding equal protection and Title VII. The Second
Circuit of the case denied rehearing and affirmed on the first
ruling. The decisions of the court will have effects in clarifying
steps undertaken by employers in creating a diverse workplace
in the future. The above approach may be undertaken through
employers avoiding lawsuits connected to Title VII.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.

7. The second case revolves around Phillips v. Martin Marietta
Corp. Ida Philips acted as the petitioner of the case and started
the suit through the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. She used Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights.
She claimed that the Martin Marietta Corp failed to accept her
application because of her sex. The District Court issued a
summary judgment for the company on some factors. In 1966,
the company communicated to Mrs. Philips that it did not accept
job applications from women who had pre-school age children
(FindLaw, 2018). During the summary judgment motion, the
company had already initiated employment positions for women
who had pre-school children. The situation saw the application
period of Mrs. Philips having 70-75% of the applicants to
Martin Marietta Corp being women. The company had also
employed 75-80% of women for different positions. The
situation raised questions of bias against women (FindLaw,
2018).
The 1964 Civil Rights Act provides clauses that give
employment opportunities to an employee irrespective of sex.
The situation saw Ms. Philips winning the case because of her
reasons for the denial of employment. It found that the company
had failed to uphold the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The situation
led to discriminating against women based on their gender, a
factor that was against plans of affirmative actions that were
intended to protect employees against discrimination. In
summary, affirmative action is meant to introduce equality in
the work environment. Gender discrimination is a significant
barrier to development in the professional environment.
Meredith v. Jefferson

8. The third case discusses the case between Meredith v. Jefferson.
The case involved Crystal D. Meredith who launched a case
against Jefferson County Board of Education. Students had
different choices of learning institutions. However, students did
not get space in some schools because they failed to
accommodate them. The enrollment of students in schools was
based on race, place of residence, and capacity of the schools.
Black students had 11% enrollment into the schools while the
white ones had a considerable number of enrollment. The court
had a decision of a 5-4 margin in its outcome related to the
case. It came up with a decision that the public school systems
may not seek to ensure the maintenance of integration via
different measures that consider the race of students based on
constitutional grounds (Oyez, 2018). Chief Justice John Roberts
had an opinion that limited the validity of the racial diversity in
Louisville and Seattle. Discrimination was seen as an outcome
and as a process.
Therefore, Chief Justice Roberts saw that discrimination and
discriminating were keen on perpetuating the issue. Therefore,
he summarized the situation by stating that people should stop
discrimination by stopping discriminating acts due to race.
According to Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy had a different
opinion to that of Justice Roberts. Other three justices of the
bench supported the opinion by Justice Roberts. Kennedy
implied that diversity depended on the concept of definition and
meaning. This acted as a compelling educational objective
pursued by any school of thought. Concerning affirmative
action, it was seen that African American students were being
discriminated against in the enrollment process. It was
identified that Jefferson County used race as an approach to
undertake enrollment which was considered unconstitutional.
Grutter vs. Bollinger

9. The fourth case evaluates a case about Grutter vs. Bollinger.
The case occurred in 1997 in the United States. It involved
Barbara Grutter who resided in Michigan and was of white
racial background. Ms. Grutter had made an application to the
University of Michigan Law School for admission. As a bright
student, her application was backed by an undergraduate GPA
of 3.8 and LSAT scores of 161. This was excellent for any
student who wanted to enter a university during that period. The
situation saw her being denied admission by the university.
According to the Law School, the administration admitted to
using race as a critical factor in admitting students and
formulating decisions about the above factor.
The decision to undertake the denial of Ms. Grutter revolved
around the need of the university trying to achieve diversity to
its students (Grutter V. Bollinger, 2018). According to the
District Court, the reason provided by the Law School regarding
its decision to achieve diversity among students lacked a
compelling outcome. The situation meant that the management
of the university used race as a basis to propagate its
discriminatory policies against students from different races. A
similar case held in 1978 by the Supreme Court was used to
affirm the decision by the District Court. The case was
California v. Bakke. It eliminated approaches employed by
universities regarding justifying the employment of racial
preferences in the admission process. Based on the case, it was
identified that the Law School used a critical analysis of
applications from students to admit them into their learning
environments.
References
Barnes, L. (2015). How Mandatory Arbitration Agreements and
Class Action Waivers Undermine Consumer Rights and Why We
Need Congress to Act. Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev., 9,, 329.

10. Creta, M. (2014). The accommodation of last resort: The
Americans with Disabilities Act and reassignments. BCL Rev.,
55, 1693.
Fernandes, L., & Alsaeed, N. (2014). African Americans and
workplace discrimination. European Journal of English
Language and Literature Studies, 2(2), 56-76.
FindLaw. (2018). PHILLIPS v. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP.
Findlaw for Legal Professionals. Retrieved from
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/400/542.html
Grutter V. Bollinger. (2018). Oyez. Retrieved from
www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-241
Legal Information Institute. (2009). Ricci v. DeStefano (07-
1428); Ricci v. DeStefano (08-328). LII Supreme Court
Bulletin. Retrieved from www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-
1428
Oyez. (2018). Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education.
Oyez. Retrieved from www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-915
Priest, N., Esmail, A., Kline, R., Rao, M., Coghill, Y., &
Williams, D. (2015). Promoting equality for ethnic minority
NHS staff—what works? Bmj, 351, h3297.