THE SCCTA DIRECTOR DECIDED TO OVERRULE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE INTERVIEW PANELISTS TO OFFER THE JOB TO PAUL JOHNSON AND, INSTEAD, HE OFFERED IT TO DIANE JOYCE. ON WHAT GROUNDS COULD THIS DECISION BE JUSTIFIED?
SCCTA director Diane Joyce offered the job to Diane Joyce. Many factors revolve around these decisions. For Instance, some legal complexities were in the limelight because the male applicant sued the company over this controversial decision. It has been revealed that the company did not have adequate women participation at the bottom-line. The company has preferred white males at top job positions. The decision can be justified because the firm wanted to increase women’s participation in the operational process. The case reveals that only 22.4% of employees in the agency were women (Case Para 1). The management of the company wanted to break barriers and overrule the recommendations; the firm preferred male candidates in the past for several job positions. Diane and Paul were qualified and experienced employees of the company. However, the firm intends to integrate with new civil right acts to avoid discrimination. The firm wanted to avoid gender discrimination, and it is the main ground to justify the decision. The company has justified the decision by taking the affirmative action plan. The firm wanted to demonstrate the ethical hiring or selection process to increase the number of female participants. On the other hand, Paul had concerns, and he sued the company over the alleged discrimination. Later, the court found the decision right and legal, and affirmative action plan was aligned with the updated civil right and discrimination act of the country. Hiring Diane Joyce instead of Paul Johnson seemed controversial. However, it can be justified on ethical and legal grounds (Casenote Legal Briefs).
EVALUATE THE DECISION REGARDING (1) ITS NECESSITY, (2) ITS PRACTICALITY/FEASIBILITY, AND (3) ITS LIMITATIONS/DISADVANTAGES.
-
Necessity
Justice Brennan reviewed the case quite differently. He focused on the necessity of this decision or hiring process according to his views, women have been underrepresented in the job dispatcher category. Thus, promoting women and preferring them due to their education and experience was the right decision. It was necessary to favor the company to fill the workplace gap and make the difference in the bottom-line. Promoting the qualified applicant for this particular job position was necessary. On the other hand, this selection was part of the affirmative plan. Aligning with the law and talking affirmative plan was important to have the right person at the right place (Hartman, Mersky and Tate).
-
Practicality/Feasibility
This selection was doable for the agency. It is a fact that none of the 238 skilled craft worker positions were held by women (Case Para 9). Thus, this affirmative action was a good initiative to fill the space. Interestingly, it was feasible due to less resistance by skill craft workers as well. Only other applicants like Paul depicted the resistance, and it was overturned by the justification of affirmative action and the court’s verdict.
-
Limitations/Disadvantages
The big disadvantage regarding this decision was the legal complication or complexity. The firm had to waste time and hire legal consultants to defend its position in this case. Also, the workforce could contain the perception of favoritism in the hiring process, and it also could create a negative impact. Thus, to justify the decision, it is necessary to eliminate these perceptions and come up with the pertinent rationale to satisfy all key stakeholders or the agency.
Work Cited
Casenote Legal Briefs. Legislation, Keyed to Eskridge, Frickey, and Garrett’s Cases and Materials on Legislation. Aspen Publishers Online, 2008.
Hartman, Gary R, Roy M Mersky and Cindy L Tate. Landmark Supreme Court Cases: The Most Influential Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Infobase Publishing, 2014.
+447462439809