Eeoc V. Consolidated Service System Summary

Case:
EEOC v. Consolidated Service System, 989 F.2d 233 (Cir. 1993), as cited by Bennett-Alexander, D.D. and Hartman, L. P. (2014) at 195.
1. If the court in Consolidated ruled that, even though the statistics told another story, there was no evidence of “intentional” discrimination, would unbalanced workforce due to word-of-mouth recruiting alone ever constitute disparate treatment?
No, word-of-mouth recruiting alone would not constitute disparate treatment. In order for it to be considered disparate treatment, the employer’s intention to discriminate must be proven, which in this case was not proven. Hwang simply used word-of-mouth since it was the most efficient method of recruiting for his small firm. A similar situation was seen in the case of EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works 947 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1991), as cited by Bennett-Alexander at 143-144, in which the EEOC claimed that Chicago Miniature Lamp Works discriminated against blacks in it hiring through a word-of-mouth process. The court dismissed the treatment claim because it required intent, which was not proven.
2. Consider your and the court’s response to the above question. Would your decision be different if it could be shown that, in a certain small,

As cited by Bennett-Alexander at 148, negligent hiring is the employment of a person who caused harm and could have been prevented had the employer conducted a background check on the employee. In this case, Walmart did not have a policy in place that required a criminal background check for its employees at the time of hiring, which is irresponsible considering that it is the employee’s responsibility to ensure that there is no information that if discovered would put other employees and customers at risk. Given that Randall would be interacting with other employees and customers, Walmart should have conducted a background check on its employees to ensure the safety of its employees and