From the case above, I think discrimination occurred, and the Xerox Corporation did not intend to do since they thought that by introducing a diverse workforce environment, they were doing something right. However, they ended up denying the people, on the racial grounds, the right to advance and I am compelled to think that disparate treatment must have taken place during the recruiting process. According to Suk (2017), disparate impact is that discrimination that occurs whenever employment policies lead to members belonging to a protected class are treated unfavorably compared to those from the non-protected members even if the act of discrimination itself is unintentional (Powe, 2018). Xerox claims that while in Houston, the black employees over presented them and thus they wanted more of the white employees (Girard, 2018; Boxill, 2009). The case indicates how the corporation tried but failed to meet the wanted numbers for diversification. The implemented and took steps to achieve this goal. I am interested in knowing the type of actions that the corporation took to attain its intended purpose. Did the employer deny the qualified blacks a position? By what number did the chosen white candidates exceed the number of qualified black candidates? To determine whether the discrimination was a disparate treatment or disparate impact, I would like to the above two questions to be addressed first.

In this case, the burden of proof is on the defendant since they need to present evidence proving that the black candidates were not discriminated against by their actions. I think the defendants, to make their case, will claim that they implemented some sections as defined in the affirmative action plan and then try to introduce the concept of how they had intended to not only promote but also hire the potential employee candidates. They will claim that they had put everything in place regarding goals and hiring timeline but had not done adequate research; that they have devoted more time at analyzing government statistics rather than coming up with their study. If they make use the suggestions I have provided herein, the company will not succeed because it demonstrates that they did not only fail to consider the crucial sections of the affirmative action plan but also failed to follow through every step thoroughly. They could have come up with posts of their job advertisements and post them in specific demographic areas of their target population. This move may have boosted their defense. However, the case does not define whether this was done or not.

If Xerox worked out their previous plan, given they aliased with the law, the same goal could have been attained with negligible discrimination. This because their actions demonstrated discriminative behavior since they were promoting and hiring employees by race rather than experience and qualification (Bhagwat, 2010).

References

Bhagwat, A. (2010). Racial Discrimination and Affirmative Action. The Myth of Rights,173-204. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377781.003.008

Boxill, B. (2009). Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and Diversity in Business. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307955.003.0019

Powe, L. A. (2018). From Discrimination to Affirmative Action. Americas Lone Star Constitution. doi:10.1525/california/9780520297807.003.0004

Suk, J. (2017). Discrimination and Affirmative Action. The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Discrimination,394-406. doi:10.4324/9781315681634-39

Girard, V. (2018). Don’t Touch My Road. Evidence from India on Affirmative Action And Everyday Discrimination. World Development,103, 1-13. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.008