MGMT315 unit 2

docx

School

American InterContinental University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

315

Subject

Management

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by JusticeResolveOkapi28

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 Travis Lexvold American Intercontinental University INSTRUCTOR: JULIE KOVENCZ

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 Navigating Legal Constraints in Employee Recruitment: An Analysis of Federal, State, and Local Laws for Employers. Employers encounter an intricate network of federal, state, and local laws when seeking new talent. These laws are crafted to safeguard the rights of candidates and guarantee ethical hiring procedures. Nevertheless, the expansive array of regulations can leave employers feeling perplexed and overwhelmed. This report investigates four pivotal laws associated with employee recruitment from the standpoint of both candidates and employers. By delving into these legal aspects, the report strives to empower employers with the requisite understanding to skillfully navigate the hiring process and evade grievances. Impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on Racial Equality What were the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It's fair to claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 turned the tables in America. This pivotal legislation marked significant alteration in the outlook towards racial and gender diversity, indicating an essential tilt in society's perspective on equality as well as fairness (Aiken et al., n.d.). Yet these changes didn't quite ripple out into American workplaces at first. It wasn't until an outfit called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – EEOC for short – was established that grievances around employment discrimination could be probed with vigor and precision, and only then were measures from our good old Civil Rights Act truly enforced (Aiken et al., n.d.). The Act also laid the groundwork for advancing discussions on topics such as affirmative action, pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment. (Aiken et al., n.d.). The monumental Civil Rights Act in 1964 emerged as a comprehensive legislation, emphatically

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 banning discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, and gender. It incorporated stipulations that vehemently barred any kind of discrimination within public domains - be it accommodations or educational institutions and federally funded enterprises. And without mincing words - this impactful law fortified people's access to public terrain irrespective of their identity anomalies or distinct backgrounds. (Aiken et al., n.d.). Overall, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant step forward in promoting equality and justice for all Americans. Discuss the impact of each law from an applicant's perspective If you're viewing it from a job-seeker's standpoint, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, why, it's had some considerable sway on employment openings as well as ridding workplaces of discrimination. Now, this legislation and its banishment of bias is rooted in race or color; faith tradition or home country; even gender. All these collectively ensured that the pitch for prospective employees became much more equitably level. (Landsberg, n.d.). While earlier evaluations of the Civil Rights Act shed light on its roots and impact, we must remember that this act didn't instantaneously modify America's workplace equality scenario. (Aiken et al., n.d.). Yet despite such hurdles, it hasn’t prevented the act from making profound ripples in our society. Presently also, it influences both public and private sector workforces continuously (Humphrey, n.d.). Answered by an urgent call for fairness, the passing of this very Civil Rights Act stands as one major legislative victory back in the 20th century (Hersch & Shinall, n.d.) (Goldstein, n.d.). Those championing racial equality, however, appear to be mired in an immense predicament. It's been half a century, and the universal fulfillment of racial equality remains nothing more than a promise we're yet to fully deliver on (Brown, n.d.). The ramification of the Civil Rights Act is puzzling— it has brought about variable impacts within the black community. Sure, it's carved out fresh avenues for jobs and learning. Yet there are still pockets where bias rears its ugly head

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 making gaining parity in resource and opportunity access a tough ask for minorities (Bell, n.d.). Wrapping it up – the Civil Rights Act has done wonders shaping applicant landscapes, but all said and done, we've mountains to climb before everyone sees equal chances. Discuss the impact of each law from an employer’s perspective The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was, without a doubt, one of the most significant legislative triumphs in recent history. Diving into its eleven titles reveals that it tackled racial bias across numerous segments of public life—spanning from employment to education and even voting rights alongside areas for public accommodation. Now let's focus on Title VII of this historic Act—it explicitly outlaws any discrimination by an employer based on race, color, religion or creed, sex as well as national origin. While yes — this substantial law has been instrumental towards promoting racial justice — it hasn't come without hurdles for employers either! They're mandated now more than ever before to ensure that their procedures for hiring, and office policies are void of discriminatory elements and absolutely must conform with regulations set under Title VII (Brown n.d.). At times, this can be a taxing task for employers. They might not fully grasp the ambit of legislation and its repercussions - that's why it gets challenging. Seen from another angle, there's been an upshot in filings with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission along with race discrimination lawsuits that throw employers to be more ever watchful in their hiring procedures (Hersch & Shinall, n.d.). Now speaking 'bout an employee’s standpoint? Well, the law offers them legal remedies to tackle workplace bigotry. But flip over to employer side of things? Keeping pace with Title VII rules could drain substantial time and resources (Aiken et al., n.d.) Look at the domino effect of the Civil Rights Act. Various federal agencies sprang up post-act, their core duty being to uphold these civil rights laws (Berg, N.D.). Sure, there's ongoing debate about how well the act

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 promotes racial equality. But it has undoubtedly colored American race relations in a significant way—the foundations of a more diverse and inclusive society were laid by it (Andrews & Gaby, n.d.). Now here’s an important caveat—employers have faced some long-ranging implications because of this legislation. It's like they are walking on eggshells—they must be acutely aware of what their legal obligations are under this law while also trying not to let their operation efficiency derail (Humphrey, n.d.). Legal Framework of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Title VI of the Civil Rights Act from 1964 is a U.S. law that says 'no' to any discrimination based on race, color or where you're originally from in all programs and activities funded by federal dollars. This includes many health-related programs and services eligible for federal funding. Yet, applying Title VI can be quite tricky due to the hurdles in establishing evidence of discrimination, figuring out suitable solutions, and dealing with a court system that may not recognize the impact of bias. Private litigants have also encountered obstacles in directly invoking Title VI protections. Despite the hurdles, there's a fresh wave of enforcement efforts from Title VI - with an eye for achieving fairer results in federally funded community health initiatives. And so, the crucial role that this legislation continues to enact is evident. Regardless of race or color or where you were born, every individual must have equal access to all federal programs and their services. (Rosenbaum & Schmucker, n.d.). Discuss the impact of each law from an applicant's perspective When viewed from the standpoint of an applicant, how each law comes into play can differ vastly depending on the individual characteristic of a specific piece legislation—and its interpretation. For example, look at Title VII within the Civil Rights Act established in 1964. It

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 outright bans any type of discrimination based on someone's race, color, religion—they're sex even—or simply where they hail from originally. No employer should afford to refuse offering employment to anyone strictly due to their gender. Of course, this stance equally applies across all grounds explicitly protected under our laws. (Miller Jr, n.d.). Despite that, the past decade has seen considerable progress in establishing substantive law under Title VII. These advancements have resulted in three critical cases which set up frameworks for class-action lawsuits within this Act. (Belton, n.d.). Within these guidelines, envision courts outlining paths toward achieving comprehensive compliance with Title VII; it is hoped such procedures would set judicial action on a track like what the EEOC recognizes as tenable. (Gould, n.d.). Similarly, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act opposes bigotry on grounds such as race, color, or national origin. This applies to any program getting federal financial assistance. Although private litigants might grapple with voicing their rights under Title VI protections directly, they can legally tackle and enforce prohibitions that have a disparate impact (Rosenbaum & Schmucker, n.d.). Besides, it's intriguing how 'sex' oddments have set off an assortment of lawsuits under Title VII (Koffie-Lart & Tyson, n.d.). Notwithstanding these laws were crafted to quit discrimination and spark fairness along with equality. Well, it's influenced by each specific case context and circumstance. Let's talk about Elmhurst Chrysler Plymouth, for instance. This case vividly highlights how our existing legal regulations tend to fall short when it comes to dealing with discrimination suits lodged by people who have suffered sexual harassment (Winston, n.d.). It's key that we delve into scrupulous analysis of the way our judicial system reshapes racial issues through court disputes. Think back on legislation like 1964’s Civil Rights Act; a statutory response spurred on by discriminatory behaviors (Endres, n.d.) (Halpern, n.d.). Discuss the impact of each law from an employer’s perspective

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a legislative response to the discrimination and social injustice experienced by various groups in American society (Endres, n.d.). The legislation made it illegal for employers to deny job opportunities based on race, religion, national origin, and sex. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents employers from discriminating against employees and gives them a way to fight against discrimination at work. But many legal scholars argue that the lawmakers who wrote this law couldn't have predicted how far-reaching its effects would be. (Gardner, n.d.). The development of substantive law during the first decade of Title VII has established the doctrinal framework for class actions in three important cases, including Hall v. Werthan Bag Corporation (Belton, n.d.). Although the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is broad, it makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on sex, like how it prohibits discrimination on other grounds (Miller Jr, n.d.). In contrast to Title VII, Title VI's disparate impact prohibitions cannot be enforced through private litigation and only allow for administrative enforcement by federal agencies (Rosenbaum & Schmucker, n.d.). The inadequacy of the current legal framework governing discrimination suits brought by victims of sexual harassment is illustrated by Elmhurst Chrysler Plymouth case, which highlights the need for more robust legal protections for victims of sexual harassment (Winston, n.d.). Guidelines established by the EEOC will hopefully serve as the basis for judicial action in enforcing Title VII (Gould, n.d.). However, the use of litigation and the legal system to transform how racial problems are defined and remedied is a critical issue that requires further analysis (Halpern, n.d.). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Let's put the spotlight on the law in question here and that would be none other than "the Americans with Disabilities Act" (ADA). This specific legislation boasts a provision; it forbids

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 blowback against folks who assert their rights as outlined by ADA. But hold your horses, there was one interpretation which mentioned individuals resorting to mitigation measures such as taking meds may not stand under ADA's protective shield (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.) (You are here, n.d.). Consider the Sutton Trilogy, a term used to discuss several Supreme Court decisions about how we interpret the ADA. These rulings ended up homing in on a tighter definition of 'disability' according to this law. Beyond that, there's Olmstead v L.C., another noteworthy case. It compellingly demonstrates that whenever it’s within our power to do so, services need to be given right amongst us in integrated community- based settings. (You are here, n.d.). Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was put into effect as a law that deals with public policies concerning disabilities. This act came into being in 1973 and established the basic civil right of not being discriminated against. It also mandated affirmative actions to eliminate barriers in architecture and communication, as well as provide necessary accommodations (The History of the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). However, the Supreme Court rulings in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v Williams (1999) and Alabama v. Garrett (2001) have narrowed down the protections offered by the ADA (You are here, n.d.) (Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). During this period, the disability rights movement experienced significant growth in terms of its knowledge, abilities, and prominence. Subsequently, we saw an uptick in litigation to combat discrimination. Scores of these cases found themselves heard before America's apex court - the U.S. Supreme Court (The History of the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.) (Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Interesting fact though – it's the EEOC that is saddled with the mandate of enforcing Section 501 from the Rehabilitation Act enacted in '73 – effectively ruling out any sort of favoritism by Uncle Sam

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 against qualified individuals suffering impairments as employer (The Americans with Disabilities Act: The Development of the Law, n.d.). Discuss the impact of each law from an applicant's perspective From the view of a prospective employee, it's critical to recognize that their interpretation can be distinctly impacted by the specific law applying. For instance, let's glance at Title I of ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act. This clause outlaws prejudiced behavior against disabilities from private employers which could stand as a significant consideration for job seeking individuals harboring some disability. However, don't forget this-ADA isn’t all encompassing in covering instances where discrimination based on disability occurs; meaning an applicant might not always find themselves sheltered under its wings (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Moreover, there is other legislation in place too. Take for instance the Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 - it is a staunch stand against discrimination when selling or renting housing based on someone's race, religion, country of origin and sex. Anyone seeking shelter could see their perspective quite influenced by this law if they've suffered from any form of bias due to these protected features (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Indeed, the Sutton trilogy has further tightened what is considered a disability under the ADA. This refinement could have implications for applicants whose impairments may not fall within these more stringent parameters offered by this case law (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Given the circumstances, giving due attention to any statutes that might apply in an applicant's circumstance can be vital and profoundly shape their outlook on potential discrimination. Discuss the impact of each law from an employer’s perspective

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that applies to employers with 15 or more employees (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.) (Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Compliance with the ADA's employment provisions can be a complex and time-consuming process for employers, who must consider the impact of the law on their daily operations and compliance efforts (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). State and local government bodies, job agencies, as well as labor unions all fall under the purview of the ADA (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Companies boasting a staff strength of 25 or more were given until mid-1992 to get on board with ADA's employment directives. The rules concerning public accommodation got rolling a bit earlier in '92. These rules state that necessary modifications be made to welcome folks living with disabilities into all public spaces like eateries, theatres, day-care hubs, parks, and institutional buildings plus hotels too (Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). From an employer's perspective, the law impacts recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, and social activities (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Employers are required to provide people with disabilities with equal opportunities in employment-related opportunities (Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). Employers with 15-24 employees had until mid-1994 to come into compliance with the ADA's employment provisions (Americans with Disabilities Act, n.d.). So, the ADA has important effects for employers of all sizes. They really need to make sure their operations stick to what the law asks so they won't find themselves in any legal trouble. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) Let's take, for instance, the Age Discrimination in Employment act (ADEA). Governed at a federal level, this law offers safeguards against age discrimination within the realms of

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 employment. It addresses specific concerns associated with an aging workforce. The ADEA has provisions stating that should a willful violation of its statutes occur; liquidated damages can be awarded up to the amount of backpay due. In legal terms under ADEA, such 'willfulness' signifies that either an employer had knowledge about their engagement in unlawful conduct or exhibited what legally qualifies as reckless disregard about whether their actions were prohibited by law itself. Yet it must also be pointed out that neither compensatory nor punitive damages are permitted under this legislation. The ADEA's 'mixed motive' guideline stipulates that a jury needs to rule out for the complainant if their being part of a protected class played any role at all, regardless of whether non-discriminatory factors were present or not. The law this discussion refers to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. It is an important legal case since it provided clarity regarding the mixed-motive criterion. Here’s what happened in that scenario - Hopkins wasn't promoted because her employers felt she didn’t exhibit enough femininity as per their expectation and perception; they adjudged her ‘too masculine.’ Now here’s where it gets interesting! The Supreme Court ruled gender stereotyping indeed falls under sex discrimination segment, concluding Miss Hopkins would have gotten a nod for promotion had she entirely adhered to societal feminine constructs. 2017 marks the remarkable 50th birthday of ADEA; a momentous anniversary indeed. Here, it's crucial to note that certain states have established laws relating to ADEA—adding another layer of complexity. In those specific states with an enforcement agency and binding state law in place, you'll find a more generous time extended for filing charges under ADEA when contrasted against their counterparts devoid of such provisions (Button, n.d.). Discuss the impact of each law from an applicant's perspective

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 Let's consider this from an employment applicant's viewpoint. The ADEA, they'd say, is a vital safeguard against ageism in the workplace. Still, the effectiveness of that shield has its limits. Unlike Title VII for instance, which categorizes victims of age discrimination as 'protected', ADEA sadly falls short and doesn't offer equivalent legal armor (Senn, n.d.). And then there are those oh-so-convenient exemptions; top-tier execs and specific government workers fall outside the protective umbrella of ADEA (Stock & Beegle, n.d.). Also, consider that folks working in regions with home-grown ageism laws might well be more affected by the ADEA because of an odd provision in federal law. This gives precedence to state legislation under certain conditions (Lahey, n.d.). Moreover, there's data indicating that legal protection for people experiencing layered discrimination based on both age and gender has its hands tied under the ADEA (McLaughlin, n.d.). However intriguingly enough scholarly voices consistently clamor for broadening the protective umbrella of the ADEA—they want antidiscrimination laws extensively applied to address aging workforce issues (Issacharoff & Harris, n.d.). There's one hitch that could potentially shake up the ADEA's effectiveness. We're talking about its mixed- motive rule, which has had legal obstacles thrown at it, and comes dangerously close to weakening when faced with guesses of tucking disparate impact theory under legality (Head & Burke, n.d.). Yet regardless of these constraints hanging over it like a dark cloud, ADEA stands its ground usually as an essential ally for those job seekers battling age discrimination in their line of work—particularly valuable in states where they couldn't find other kinds of protection (Button, n.d.). Discuss the impact of each law from an employer’s perspective. Each law, employers have noticed, leaves a distinct footprint on their operations. Reckon the ADEA—it bars discrimination against staffers aged 40 or over—but it's often seen as less

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 shielding compared to Title VII and other laws meant to stub out discrimination, no thanks to its lack of employee “protection” idea (Senn, n.d.). Plus–and this is rare–the ADEA holds an odd stipulation that echoes louder for workers in states with their own rules against age-based bias making them more prone to endure the most of federal law antics (Lahey, n.d.). Nonetheless, it's key to note that certain employees are exempt from the protection provided by age laws. Instead, such workers might benefit more from disability laws (Stock & Beegle, n.d.). Adding a further layer of complexity is the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)—an amendment made to ADEA—which allows employers leverage specific technical standards for ensuring waivers' validity. You can see why employers appreciate this aspect of law! But then there are those legal gurus vying for broadening ADEA protections even more. These folks believe in fully exploiting anti-discrimination law, which according to them could serve as one tackle- worthy solution when aging plays up issues in employment. Revved-up ADEA impacts could emerge in states with extant legislation against age discrimination. (Issacharoff & Harris, n.d.). Now let’s shift our gaze elsewhere, to the possible legal consequences if we allow the ADEA to recognize something known as disparate impact theory - and folks, these aren’t small ramifications either! The way employers navigate age bias in their hiring processes might have a whole new set of rules and considerations (Head & Burke, n.d.). Each law meanders through its own unique implications for those hiring-and-firing guys at your company or mine. So, listen up – it's crucial they unravel these complexities to avoid breaking any anti-discrimination laws. In this research paper, the significance of employers adhering to federal, state, and local laws to guarantee equitable recruitment practices without bias is brought to the forefront. It underlines the necessity of granting equal employment opportunities and safeguarding individuals against mistreatment stemming from numerous factors. Moreover, the paper

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2 acknowledges the responsibility borne by employees in upholding legal frameworks, while also underscoring the crucial nature of employers elucidating their legal obligations and integrating non-discriminatory measures throughout the hiring procedure. The study recognizes the lack of knowledge about legal systems in various parts of the world and proposes the need for more investigation in this field. In general, the paper offers a valuable resource for employers, employees, and policymakers as they navigate the legal constraints associated with hiring inexperienced personnel.

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2  Aiken, J., Salmon, E., Hanges, P. The origins and legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-013- 9291-z  Landsberg, B. Public accommodations and the civil rights act of 1964: A surprising success. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Humphrey, H. [BOOK][B] The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The passage of the law that ended racial segregation. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from books.google.com  Hersch, J., Shinall, J. Fifty years later: The legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.21824  Goldstein, J. Constitutional Dialogue and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Brown, P. The civil rights act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Bell, D. The Final Civil Rights Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Berg, R. Equal employment opportunity under the civil rights act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Andrews, K., Gaby, S. Local protest and federal policy: The impact of the civil rights movement on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/socf.12175  Rosenbaum, S., Schmucker, S. Viewing health equity through a legal lens: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/article-abstract/42/5/771/131412

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2  Miller Jr, R. Sex discrimination and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Belton, R. Comparative review of public and private enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, A. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Gould, W. Employment Security, Seniority and Race: The Role of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Koffie-Lart, D., Tyson, C. Title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Winston, J. Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Title VII, Section 1981, and the Intersection of Race and Gender in the Civil Rights Act of 1990. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Endres, K. In their own voices: Women redefine and frame Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08821127.2009.10677692  Halpern, S. [BOOK][B] On the limits of the law: The ironic legacy of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from books.google.com  Gardner, W. The Development of the Meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  You are here. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from adata.org/ada-timeline  Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/  The History of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from dredf.org/about-us/publications/the-history-of-the-ada/

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2  Americans with Disabilities Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from www.britannica.com/topic/Americans-with-Disabilities-Act  The Americans with Disabilities Act: The Development of the Law | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from www.eeoc.gov/americans-disabilities-act-development-law  Button, P. [BOOK][B] Population aging, age discrimination, and age discrimination protections at the 50th anniversary of the age discrimination in employment act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-24135- 3_9  Senn, C. Perception over Reality: Extending the ADA's Concept of Regarded as Protection under Federal Employment Discrimination Law. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Stock, W., Beegle, K. Employment protections for older workers: Do disability discrimination laws matter?. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1093/cep/byh009  Lahey, J. State age protection laws and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/589670  McLaughlin, J. Limited Legal Recourse for Older Women's Intersectional Discrimination Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Issacharoff, S., Harris, E. Is age discrimination really age discrimination: the ADEA's unnatural solution. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org

Survey of Human Resource Management: MGMT315 Unit 2  Head, T., Burke, D. Broadbanding: Legal and Policy Implications under the ADEA. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org  Dosanjh, K. Old Rules Need Not Apply: The Prohibition of Ratification and Tender Back in Employees' Challenges to ADEA Waivers. (n.d.) Retrieved January 19, 2024, from heinonline.org

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

MGMT315 unit 2

Related Documents