How Racial Discrimination Cases Change the Fate of Prospective Employees

Despite the technological advancements and progress in social awareness that this country has made, we still have a long way to go in establishing equality among all races, classes, and genders. Discrimination and prejudice stems from eons of cultural ideology in which one nationality or race deems themselves better than another. This is still alive in many facets of our daily lives, and sadly, one of those is in the realm of a necessity to a fruitful life: employment.

Landmark cases on racial discrimination in employment have catapulted our citizens into a state of heightened awareness. The traditional patriarchal view that in some ways recognize white men as the leaders in industry and economy (as well as intellect and ability) is thankfully dwindling due to some brave individuals who fought for the right to equal value and opportunities.

One such example of a landmark case on racial discrimination in employment is that of a group of former Walgreens employees versus their former employer. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that Walgreens employers had been assigning African Americans to lower performing stores in African American neighborhoods. Further violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Code, Walgreens denied promotions to non-white workers. The ensuing lawsuit against Walgreens resulted in a $20 million settlement.

These landmark cases on racial discrimination in employment can provide an insight into our social paradigms and help to swing the pendulum into a blind society where skin color and dimensions are not used as guidelines for employment or abilities.

In April of 2005, Judge Susan Illston of the US District Court for the Northern District of California deemed Abercrombie and Fitch guilty in racial discrimination against employees. The approved settlement stipulated that the retail chain pay out $40 million in damages to the claimants. As of now, Abercrombie and Fitch are under a consent decree to set benchmarks for hiring those of African American, Latino, or Asian decent as well as women.

The positive repercussions of this landmark case on racial discrimination in employment may indeed spur a more diverse employee base in one of North America's largest chain clothing stores. But this attention may also only serve to propagate the racial judgments that got them in this predicament in the first place.

Affirmative Action is a byproduct of these landmark cases on racial discrimination in employment. Some revel in the apparent equality that this measure summons, but others lament the requirement to hire on the basis of race and gender as they feel it presents a more invidious hiring approach and deepens resentment between racial groups.

Either way, it seems these landmark cases on racial discrimination in employment are deepening our awareness of workplace diversity as well as the legal implications of who hires whom.