Case study: Local 28 vs. EEOC
GB541: Employment Law

Local 28 vs. EEOC
1. Is it clear to you why a court would be able to include in its remedies those who were not directly discriminated against by any employer?
Yes, it is clear to me how and why the judge was able to include those who were not specificity directed by the company’s actions to be included in the outcome of the ruling. Title VII was put in place to help protect minorities in the workplace and those in search of employment. This Act which was passed in 1964, prohibits discriminations in regards to the process of hiring, firing, and training, promoting and disciple along with the advertisement of open positions. This Act also includes any workplace
The judge ordered that twenty-nine percent of the union membership be made up of non-white individuals. I would make sure that this was done or at the very least have documentation to show that there was steps being made to hire non-white males. This could include propaganda that was aimed at the community to welcome the non-white individual’s interest in the company. Documentation of those who have applied and interviewed with the company to show the diverse dynamics even if they were not hired but show a detailed reason as to way they were not a good fit for the position. If I was in the position of leadership (which of course I would have been a man as females were not yet in these roles) then I would mandate that all of the other employees adhere to the sanctions that had been put forth knowing that if we did not comply then the judge can levy fines or new curt order of any kind. Being as this is a building trade many cities would come to a project-labor agreement as the judge has done with this stating that x amount of individuals working on the project are minorities. This maybe hard to do if the company is located in a prodomnitaly while geographical area. This is when the documentation would come in handy.

References
Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. (2009).