Disparate-impact Discrimination

Disparate-impact Discrimination

The Role of Residency Requirements in iWe’lling Practices

Residency requirements play a significant role in hiring practices. Employers may hire employees living near the workplace because they perceive a long commute as risky and grounds for lateness and absenteeism. For example, an employer cannot count on an employee leaving far from the workplace to come to work when an emergency arises (Cook, 2015). Employers also perceive an employee’s residence as grounds for job satisfaction. Employees with a long commute to work are often unhappy and may be less productive, especially when they feel that their efforts are not being recognized and rewarded appropriately (Peffer, 2009). There is also the assumption that an employee unwilling to relocate to move closer to their workplace will quit when they get a job near their residence. Therefore, employers prefer hiring individuals living within their location area for convenience and increased commitment. Residency requirements also influence the choice of a candidate hired because some organizations require employees to be connected to the community (Fairley & Huber, 2018). For example, healthcare facilities may hire a resident familiar with the community population and its members’ healthcare practices, making it easier to structure healthcare plans and services that meet community needs.

I believe residency requirements are generally not a valid hiring criterion because they are founded on assumptions that may not apply to everyone. For instance, employees may still be committed to their work even though they live far from the workplace because they love their job. Residency requirements should also not be considered a hiring criterion because a candidate applying for a job knows the job’s location and may have made plans to commute to work if hired. Therefore, employers should not use the long commute as grounds for disqualification. Employees may also live far from the workplace but are familiar with the community due to their interaction with the community while in the organization. In the NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue case, North Hudson assumed that hiring firefighters from the community was the best idea because they would be familiar with the streets and the building, thus responding to emergencies quickly. This assumption is not valid for hiring because the firefighters would still learn about the roads and buildings on the job, and there was also the possibility of new structures due to infrastructure development.

The Impact of the Ruling of This on Practice as a Human Resources Manager

The ruling enlightens human resource managers on the acceptable hiring practices when hiring a diverse team to avoid disparate-impact discrimination claims. The verdict also elaborated on the causes of discrimination, such as employment practices with the unintentional effect of discriminating against employees based on national origin, color, sex, race, and religion. The ruling is also essential to human resources because it shows the negative impact assumptions can have on the hiring process. For example, North Hudson assumed that hiring individuals residing near the company premises increased the likelihood that the firefighters would be able to respond to emergencies within the shortest time because of their familiarity with buildings and streets in the served community. Consequently, North Hudson denied qualified candidates an opportunity outside the preferred zone. Therefore, human resource managers must hire based on a candidate’s skills, competencies, and expertise to avoid discriminatory and biased assumptions (Walsh, 2018). The ruling is also essential to my role as a human resource practitioner because it guides me on some of the causes of disparate-impact discrimination, such as biased assumptions and their consequences on the organization’s workforce and reputation. It also taught me grounds for discriminatory hiring practices that could be acceptable when proper justification exists.

References

Cook, R. (2015). Discrimination Revised: Reviewing the Relationship between Social Groups, Disparate Treatment, and Disparate Impact. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 2(2), 219-244. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2014-0026

Fairley, W., & Huber, W. (2018). Statistical Criticism and Causality in Prima Facie Proof of Disparate Impact Discrimination. Observational Studies, 4(2), 11-16. https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2018.0001

Peffer, S. (2009). Title VII and Disparate-Treatment Discrimination versus Disparate-Impact Discrimination. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(4), 402-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371×09349442

Walsh, D. J. (2018). Employment law for human resource practice. Cengage Learning.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

This week’s assignment forum focuses on hiring, including testing procedures, hiring and promotion decisions, background checks, and recruiting methods. It is the second assignment forum related to your course project.

Your Unit 2 assignment forum is based on the NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue case study in Chapter 4 of your textbook. The case involved a claim of disparate-impact discrimination. At issue was the legality of a residency requirement for firefighter candidates imposed by North Hudson. The court found the residency requirement invalid because it disparate impacts African American applicants. This case study is the appeal to that court ruling. You will explore the topic of disparate-impact discrimination related to residency requirements and evaluate the importance of this ruling to human resources practice and your role as a human resources practitioner.

Instructions:

 As the Human Resource Manager, you must evaluate your recruiting practices for discriminatory requirements.

Read the NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue case study in Chapter 4 of your textbook.

Based on your review of the case study, address the following:

1. Discuss the role of residency requirements in hiring practices in general. As part of your discussion, consider whether or not residency requirements are, in general, a valid hiring criterion. In responding to this topic, be sure to address the residency requirement issues presented in the North Hudson case as part of your
2. Evaluate how the ruling in this case (specifically disparate impact and business necessity) impacts your practice as a Human Resources
3. Review at least one classmate’s posting after posting your submission to the assignment forum. Use the RISE model of peer feedback to provide your classmates with constructive feedback that they may consider when finalizing this portion of the project later in the

In crafting your responses to these questions, support your statements with evidence from the text, the North Hudson case study, and additional readings in the unit.