Equal Employment Opportunity Recognizing Discrimination This course will help you to develop a broad understanding of employment discrimination and the different types of workplace conflicts. As human resource professionals, you will be tasked with the responsibility of researching, understanding, and recognizing discrimination. Federal laws protect employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, genetic information, citizenship status, and age (if the employee is at least 40 years old). These laws apply only to employers of a certain size. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal law prohibiting discrimination, applies only to employers that have at least 15 employees. Some states have enacted laws that go further. These are topics that you will be expected to be able to research as a human resource professional. For this week's discussion, you must select one of following examples listed below, and conduct research based on the particular example you selected. These are situations where protected classes were intentionally treated differently from other employees or evaluated by different standards. Examples:

• A manager rejects Mexican-American applicants on the grounds that they might be illegal aliens.
• Sexual harassment, where a manger refuses to promote an employee who will not engage in sexual relations with him or her.
• Having a different entry requirement for men than for women.
• White employees who violate organizational policy are not disciplined but black employees who violate the same policy are disciplined.
• An organization hires only high-school graduates for custodial positions.

After making your selection, utilize the Internet to examine the antidiscrimination law of your home state and compare and contrast it to the federal antidiscrimination law. Once you have completed your research, compose an Initial Post in which you:

• Discuss the similarities and differences between the federal law and the law of your home state.
• Based on the example you selected, make at least two recommendations that would assist an employer with conforming to the federal and state legislative requirements. Explain the basis for your recommendation.
• In light of the way in which disparate treatment cases are decided, explain why it is important that employers document the reasons for their employment decisions; develop and consistently adhere to policies; carefully monitor and review decisions, particularly terminations; and train supervisors.

Federal law is made at the national level, and applies to the complete nation (all fifty states and also the District of Columbia), and U.S. territories. The U.S. Constitution forms the idea for federal law; it establishes government power and responsibility, furthermore as preservation of the essential rights of each national.

State law is that the law of every separate U.S. state and is applicable therein specific state. The state law applies to residents and guests of the state, and conjointly to business entities, firms, or any organizations primarily based or in operation therein state.

A state law will afford additional rights to its residents rather than federal law, however; it isn't meant to cut back or limit the rights of a U.S. citizen.

Issues beneath the Jurisdiction of Federal and State Laws

Following are a number of the problems that come back beneath the federal law:

Immigration law

Bankruptcy law

Social Security/SSI laws

Civil rights law

Patent and copyright laws

Federal criminal laws (i.e. cash counterfeiting)

The following problems are determined and legalized by the state:

Criminal matters

Divorce and family matters

Welfare, public help or health care matters

Wills, inheritances and estates

assets and different property

Business contracts

Personal injuries like from an automobile accident or medical malpractice

Employees' compensation for injuries at work

Examples of conflicts

Marijuana

Marijuana laws are another space wherever federal law conflicts with state laws in many states. However, cannabis continues to be a drug beneath federal law, thus whereas native enforcement isn't seemingly to arrest or prosecute marijuana growers or those in possession of pot (in an amount beneath the state's legal limit), these people still risk obtaining inactive by federal authorities. What is additional, businesses that are wrongfully allowed to sell pot in Washington and Colorado and, indeed, have the state-issued license to try and do thus realize that they're unable to open bank accounts or interact within the economic system (e.g. by acceptive credit cards) as a result no bank is prepared (or allowed beneath federal law) to try and do business with them. Once Washington and Colorado legalized recreational use of marijuana, the Obama administration recognized the conflict with state law and united to let these states move, with conditions and while not leaving behind federal authority to step in at any time."Federal Law vs State Law".

questions:

Regarding the subject of Marijuana :

Who do you think should have jurisdiction, state governments or the federal government? Please explain your answer as there is no wrong answer.

At what point do you think federal and state laws should be seperated? Should federal laws such as antidrug laws interfere with state laws? What about santuary states where the state says we will protect those who are doing something illegal, but because we dont think that it should be illegal we will protect them?