Reference no: EM133139511

Case Study: Victim of Discrimination?

When responding to a case study or scenario, it is important to ensure that the human resources practitioner is able to use a consistent, fact-based, problem-solving approach. The development of this skill will allow the human resources practitioner to respond to issues as they arise using an analytical methodology in order to explore possible solutions.

Marita Smith works as a data entry clerk in a government department that is undergoing downsizing. Smith, who is severely hearing-impaired, has been a productive employee in her department for the last five years. Her performance has always been above average.

Smith has received notice that her position is being eliminated as part of the downsizing. Under her union's contract, she must be given preference for any government job for which she is qualified. She must be given the job at the expense of other workers, even those already in the position, who may have less seniority. This practice is known as "bumping." Smith has been invited to apply for a term position in another government department, which is converting archival data from paper to an electronic database. To qualify for the position, Smith will have to pass an interview, a timed typing test, an accuracy test that involves accuracy in transcribing information from a computer screen, and another accuracy test that involves following written instructions to enter written records into the computer database. These are the same tests that all candidates for the position have had to pass to become eligible for the job.

Smith was interviewed one week prior to being administered the three skill tests. The interview protocol followed a standardized form used by all government departments. The three skill tests were administered to groups of nine applicants each. The applicants were seated at desks with computers, which were arranged in three rows of three desks each. The instructions for the tests were given verbally by the test administrator. Smith was provided with the services of a sign language interpreter during the testing and interview sessions.

Smith passed the interview but failed the skill tests. Her scores are presented in Table 3.5, along with the minimum scores that had to be obtained on each test to receive a job offer. Based on her performance on the tests, Smith did not receive an offer for the job and was laid off when her current job ended. Smith now believes that she was the victim of discrimination based on her physical disability; she claims that during the interview many references were made to her disability and that the interviewer always addressed questions to the sign language interpreter and never made eye contact with her. She feels that she was at a disadvantage in taking the skills tests.

Table 3.5

Smith's Scores Relative to Standards Needed to Pass Each Test

	STANDARDS	SMITH
Interview	30 out of 50 points	36
Typing Test	50 words per minute with 5 errors or fewer	36 wpm 5 errors
Accuracy-Following Instructions	7 out of 10	5.5
Accuracy-Transcribing	7 out of 10	5

Her prospective employer claims that had she passed the tests she would have been hired and her disability would have been accommodated. The employer argues that the testing standards were reasonably necessary for the efficient performance of the work. The standards in Table 3.5 are being justified as bona fide occupational requirements (BFORs). Smith has now filed a complaint with her provincial human rights commission.

1. Using information from you textbook and notes answer the follow questions:
2. Should Smith have received a job offer? Why or why not?
3. Was Smith a victim of discrimination because of her disability?  Explain 
4. Did she receive the appropriate accommodation? Explain
5. Are the employer's standards defensible as a BFOR? Explain why or why not? 
6. Based on the material presented in this chapter, do you think the human rights commission will support her claim of discrimination? 
7. If you were the employer's legal counsel, how would you defend the employer at a human rights tribunal that is called to hear Smith's complaint?  What would you advise your client to do with respect to the charge? 
8. What other proactive response/steps can be taken?