The document discusses affirmative action and Title VII as it relates to a national estate planning firm called State of Estates. It provides an overview of affirmative action and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It examines three types of affirmative action - executive order, judicial remedy, and voluntary action. It analyzes how State of Estates can minimize liability for discrimination through training, policy implementation, and adopting a voluntary affirmative action plan. It is recommended that State of Estates create a fair affirmative action policy that complies with Title VII to educate employees and prevent discrimination lawsuits.

1. HRM|546
*
Title VII as it relates to the Civil Rights Act of 1964Ways to
Minimize Liability for Race & National Origin
DiscriminationAffirmative ActionCivil Rights Act of
1964Types of affirmative action: Executive Order 11246,
Judicial Remedy, Voluntary What Type of Affirmative Action is
Required
The success of any organization depends mainly on the many
aspects that need consideration and implementation regarding
its processes. State of Estates is one of those organizations. The
organization is a national estate planning firm that operates in
eight states with 2,500 employees, which needs to look at how it
handles its processes regarding Affirmative Action and Title
VII.
The following presentation will discuss Affirmative Action and
provide an overview of Title VII as applied to race and national
origin discrimination. This presentation will discuss ways the
organization can minimize liability for race and national origin
discrimination in its employment practices. This presentation

2. will further address and provide three types of affirmative
action with Executive Order-11246, and Judicial and Voluntary
Affirmative Action as well as determining whether any form of
affirmative action is required or recommended for the firm.
*
National Estate Planning FirmEmployees Staff of 2,500 Office
Locations in Eight StatesNo Known Cases of Workplace
Discrimination
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY
State of Estates is a national estate planning firm, that
employees a staff of 2,500 with offices located in eight states
and no known cases of workplace discrimination.
*
Affirmative ActionWhat is Affirmative Action?Outcome of the
1960’s Civil Rights MovementTerm first used by President
Kennedy in 1961Executive Order 10925 established Presidents
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-ND
According to Legal Information Institute (n.d.), “Affirmative
Action is a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful
discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such
prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the
future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational
program or looking for professional employment. In modern
American jurisprudence, it typically imposes remedies against

3. discrimination on the basis of, at the very least, race, creed,
color, and national origin” (para. 1).
The 1960’s Civil Rights Movement created an outcome that
would forever change racial equality based on a person’s race,
creed, sex and national origin. The term “separate but equal”
was a falsehood regarding these class members, particularly
with race and how they were treated. The movement would
prompt legislation in the form of Executive Order 10925 that
would make it illegal to discriminate based on these classes and
signed into law by President Kennedy in March of 1961 (United
States Department of Labor, n.d.).
This was also the first time President Kennedy used the term
“Affirmative Action” in an Executive Order that prohibits
government employers from discriminating against an applicant
for employment or current employee based on the individual's
race, creed, color or national origin. The same order would later
establish the President’s Committee on Equal Employment
Opportunity and after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, became the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee
(EEOC) (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).
*
Title VII – Civil Rights Act of 1964 - unlawful for employers to
discriminate based on:Race, Color, Sex, Origin,
ReligionEstablished protection against employment
discrimination Applies to employers with 15 or more employees
including state, federal and local governments.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-
SA
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that
makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against current

4. and future employees based on the individual's race, color, sex,
national origin, or religion (AAUW, n.d.). The law affects
employers with more than 15 employees at the federal, state and
local levels. The statute also covers private and public colleges,
universities and employment agencies (AAUW, n.d.). The bill
was first proposed and introduced to the American public by
President Kennedy in 1961 during his televised speech on Civil
Rights and would later be signed into law by President Johnson.
*
Understanding the scope of Title VIIExamination and
monitoring of its processes (hiring, termination, etc..)Implement
“Zero Tolerance” PolicyEmployee Handbook
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
States of Estates can minimize its liability and reduce its
likelihood of a discrimination lawsuit by reviewing and
discussing Title VII with its employees. Because the
organization has offices in eight states, they should hire an
outside consultant to develop a training program on Title VII
outlining the full scope of what it entails. During the training, it
should be explained what Title VII covers, who it covers and
why they need it. The company will need to train its supervisors
on HR procedures, which will allow the managers to gain a
better understanding of the different forms of discrimination by
its type and how to set boundaries for acceptable behavior
Next, the organization should examine and monitor its
retention, promotion, hiring, and disciplinary practices to
ensure impartiality. Following that practice, the firm should
implement a "Zero Tolerance" policy. The policy goal is to
create a workplace free of harassment and other forms of
discrimination based on the protected classes under Title VII.

5. Also, the policy, will not condone any kind of retaliation
against any employee that reports discrimination under this
plan. The policy should be outlined in the employee handbook
with the steps on how to file a complaint, insurances that it will
be kept confidential and the punishment made clear to the firm
and the offender.
*
Executive Order 11246 – Equal Opportunity EmployerSigned
into law by President Lyndon JohnsonEstablished Department
of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP)Enforces Affirmative Action
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
In June 1965, President Johnson gave the commencement
address at Howard University, in Washington, DC where he
shared his beliefs on civil rights and nondiscriminatory views
when he said: “Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of
opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk
through those gates. This is the next and the more profound
stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but
opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability,
not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact
and equality as a result.” (Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs: History of Executive Order 11246: para.
7). The results from Johnson’s speech, was Executive Order
11246, which he signed into law three months later on
September 24, 1965 (United States Department of Labor, n.d.).
The core of Title VII has an affirmative action element as a

6. method of protection against discrimination. Affirmative Action
was enforced by Executive Order 11246 and its amendments.
The order stipulates that any employer who conducts business
with the federal government cannot discriminate with applicants
or employees based on race, color, religion, gender, or national
origin (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015).
*
Judicial ActionCivil Law ExercisedRights EnforcedPenalties
ImposedTitle VII Gives Courts Power Rules and Regulations
Imposed by Courts
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-
SA
The judicial affirmative action is remedy ordered by the courts
when discrimination has been found. Bennett-Alexander and
Hartman (2015) stated, "Rather than an affirmative action plan
imposed by Executive Order 11246, an employee may sue
alleging an employer violated Title VII, and the affirmative
action arises in response to a finding of workplace
discrimination that must be remedied. Title VII gives courts
fairly wide latitude in redressing wrongs. The courts' imposition
of affirmative action as the means of redress is known as
judicial affirmative action” (p. 231). Allowing the courts to step
in sets precedence for Affirmative Action and how its
implemented.
For example, this was the case of Allan Bakke who filed a
lawsuit against Regents of the University of California. The
case would reach the Supreme Court involving affirmative
action regarding admissions to a medical school, rather than
employment (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). Allan
Bakke was a white applicant who on two occasions was denied

7. entry to the medical university even with his GPA, MCAT and
total benchmark scores higher than his minority counterparts
(Cornell Law School, n.d.).
Believing he was discriminated against because of his race,
Bakke challenged Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
which prohibits racial or ethnic bias in programs that are
federally funded. Bakke also believed his Fourteenth
Amendment rights of equal protection had been denied because
of the university's methods of setting aside positions for
minorities (O'Neill, 2018). In this case, the court ruled, the use
of the University’s racial “quotas” was found unconstitutional
in its admissions process, but found they were constitutional in
some instances with accepting minority applicants (O'Neill,
2018). The court agreed and voted 5 to 4 in favor of Bakke.
*
Voluntary ActionPreventable Actions taken by the Employer
Private vs Public Actions Are There Requirements of Executive
Order 11246Can There be Court Remedies Imposed
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-
SA
With voluntary affirmative action, an organization can create
prevention methods to help eliminate discrimination but must
also satisfy some portion of Title VII. As was found with Weber
and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Once again
affirmative action would be tested, but this time in the
workforce. The case involved Brian Weber who believed he was
overlooked for a training program because of his race. In 1974,
Weber’s employer, Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corporation
entered into a collective bargain agreement with the United
Steelworkers Union of America (USWA), which covered 15 of

8. its plants.
In that agreement were provisions of an affirmative action plan,
in which the company would aside 50 percent of all openings
with its in-plant training craft programs until the rate of African
American craft workers was equivalent to the rate of African
Americans in the local labor population (Mikula & Mabunda,
1999). At the time, the company’s Louisiana plant employed
under two percent of skilled African American workers, even
with the local labor force at 39 percent. However, Kaiser’s goal
was to have African Americans in approximately 39 percent of
its skilled positions. The outcome resulted in Kaiser Aluminum
selecting 12 trainees for its craft program of which seven were
black, and six were white in its first year of operation (Mikula
& Mabunda, 1999).
When Weber was not selected, he filed suit charging that Kaiser
violated 703(a) and (d) of Title VII by choosing African
Americans that had less seniority over him and other white
workers (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999). Although the lower court
agreed with Weber, the ruling was overturned by the Supreme
Court. In the decision, the Justices found no basis that Kaiser
Aluminum violated 703(a) or (d) by implementing a race-based
program, only because the affirmative action program were
entered into on a voluntary basis by private parties such as the
USWA and Kaiser Aluminum (Mikula & Mabunda, 1999).
*
Voluntary Affirmative Action Policy Recommended Create Fair
Policy to Comply with Title VIIAssume Employee Can File
Discrimination Lawsuit Comply with EEOC Guidelines
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-
SA

9. After reviewing and outlining the different forms of affirmative
action, it would be in the best interest of State of Estates to
adopt a voluntary affirmative action plan to avoid employee
lawsuits like Weber v. USWA and Kaiser Aluminum. State of
Estates would need to create a policy that is not only fair to
their employees but one that complies with Title VII along with
aspects of the EEOC and its guidelines. Unfortunately, the
organization will have to contend with a disgruntle employee if
they believe they have been wrongfully terminated or passed
over for a promotion so they should always assume the
employee can and will file a lawsuit.
*
State of Estates is in a unique position because they are a
private entity and they do not necessarily need an affirmative
action plan, nor are they bound by Executive Order 11246.
However, because they have 2,500 employees, they are bound
by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
them from discrimination against their current staff and future
applicants based on the person’s classification. Because there
are no known cases of discrimination, the organization needs to
emphasize the importance of the Civil Rights Act and the
EEOC. As a method of prevention State of Estates should create
an Affirmative Action plan and incorporate training that details
what Title VII and the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 is, who it
covers and its importance to the organization and its employees.
In the end, State of Estates can minimize its liability by
following the recommendations as listed and by educating its
staff on the importance on the laws that were created to protect
those regardless the person's race, color, sex, national origin, or
religion.

10. *
AAUW. (n.d.). Know Your Rights: Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/what-we-do-
/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/title-vii/Bennett-
Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2015). Employment Law for
Business (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Education.Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Legal Law Institute.
Retrieved from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/265Departme
nt of Labor. (2011). Religious Discrimination and
Accommodation in the Federal Workplace. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/2011-Religious-
Discrimination-and-Accomodation.pdfMikula, I. M., &
Mabunda, L. M. (1999). United Steelworkers of America v.
Weber. Great American Court Cases, 3. Retrieved from
http://link.galegroup.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/apps/doc/E
J2303200475/OVIC?u=phoenix&xid=f9fd2559National
Conference on State Legislature. (2014, February 7).
Affirmative Action Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/affirmative-action-
overview-aspxO'Neill, T. (2018, March 9). Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. In the Oxford Guide to
United States Supreme Court Decisions. Retrieved from
http://www.oxfordreference.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/view
/10.1093/acref/9780195379396.001.001/acref-9780195379396-
e-472.U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from
http://www.eeoc/gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfmUnited States
Department of Labor. (n.d.). Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/about/50thAnniversaryHistory.html

11. *