Affirmative Action v. Quotas, disparate treatment and disparate impact, employment at will - Coursework Example

work Assignment work Assignment Question Affirmative action refers to governmentally invoked positive efforts that seeks to recruit individuals or group of individuals that have been discriminated in the past. Affirmative action is a mandatory requirement imposed by the federal government on all federal contractors. All employers are required to provide timetables and set goals indicating which of the protected groups they plan to add over a given time. While failure to meet set goals is not considered as evidence of discrimination, an employer is required to provide enough evidence to demonstrate his or her good faith efforts in reaching the goal.

Quotas, on the other hand, refer to a set number or percentage for the representation of people of a given group. The main difference between affirmative action and quotas is that while affirmative action has no set minimum percentages for the representation of a protected group, quotas provide this. This makes quotas easier to monitor considered that the criteria for determining whether or not an institution has complied is predetermined. Question 2Disparate impact is easier to prove compared to disparate treatment.

While disparate impact involves focuses on discriminatory consequences, disparate treatment looks at discriminatory intent. One would, therefore, suppose that it is easier to establish the consequences of discrimination than to establish the intention of discrimination. Proof of discriminatory motive does not, therefore, is not part of the disparate-impact theory. This implies that establishing the consequences of discrimination within an institution does not involve the contributions of an institution’s management as it is the case with establishing the motive behind discrimination.

Question 3The employment-at-will doctrine refers to the common rule that an employment contract with no defined duration can be terminated by either the employer or the employee at any time without the party terminating the contract having to provide good reasons for doing so. This doctrine goes against the “good will” requirement advocated by employee unions. Unlike the at-will doctrine, the good will requirement supposes that employers need to demonstrate that it is for a good cause that they intend to terminate an employee’s contract.