Analysis of the EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America Case

It may happen that companies do not pay enough attention to the necessity of treating all people equally and discriminate them, focusing on characteristics and traits that are not actually relevant to the business. For example, in 1994, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received a complaint from Richard Pugh (EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America, 1994). The plaintiff stated that the Insurance Company of North America, a firm that Pugh had tried to apply to, had rejected his application on the basis of age discrimination. In the company’s newspaper advertisement, ICNA mentioned that they needed an employee with “two years of property/casualty loss control experience,” and while the plaintiff fitted this requirement, the firm hired other persons with no experience (EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America, 1994, para. II). Their reasonings were Pugh’s ‘overqualification’ for the position and the unprofessionalism of his resume. Finally, the district court’s judgment was granted in favor of ICNA, not finding any notions of age discrimination. This is a very interesting and controversial case that is explored further.

To begin with, it is essential to define whether this case is of disparate impact or disparate treatment. According to Society for Human Resource Management (n.d.), the former refers to unintentional discrimination, whereas the latter is an intentional one. Considering the details of the case summarized in the previous paragraph, it is possible to suggest that EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America (1994) refers to disparate impact. The firm’s practices and policies were not specifically aimed at discriminating Richard Pugh or other people based on their age. It is more likely that the characteristics of the perfect employee listed in the advertisement were needed to simply attract potential workers, and the further selection was based on other criteria. Therefore, the firm could not predict that their actions would offend Mr. Pugh.

Further, it is essential to discuss the alleged discrimination and the factors related to it. First, the legal basis for it is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1967) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1964). Both acts state that it is unlawful for employers to refuse to hire people based on their age. Consequently, employees’ or candidates’ age cannot serve as a basis for the decisions and choices of firms.

Considering the previous paragraph, it is necessary to outline Pugh’s prima facie case of age discrimination. It would include four steps, with the first being for Mr. Pugh to prove that he belonged to the protected group of people forty years old or older. Second, he would need to establish that he applied for the position and was qualified for it (EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America, 1994). The third step would include proving that the firm refused to hire Mr. Pugh, and the fourth step would be to ensure that ICNA continued seeking an employee and hired someone younger than the plaintiff and with no experience.

Further, the defense that ICNA would use is related to the plaintiff’s prima facie case. The defendant would have to prove its unintentional actions regarding this position and Mr. Pugh, including relevant data demonstrating his resume’s unprofessionalism and his own ‘overqualification.’ Additionally, in case the firm had hired young people without experience for this position prior to the events under discussion, they would also need to provide this information. Finally, the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s attorneys would require ICNA’s rules and criteria that are used when assessing candidates. Mr. Pugh’s attorneys can use this information to compare and contrast the qualifications of the plaintiff and the hired younger employee, while ICNA’s attorneys can find those criteria valuable for proving that Mr. Pugh was not suitable for the position.

References

EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America, 49. F.3d 1418, 1420-21 (9th Cir. 1994). Web.

Society for Human Resource Management. (n.d.). What are disparate impact and disparate treatment? SHRM. Web.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1964). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC. Web.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1967). The age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. EEOC. Web.