Introduction
This case study is a report on Uber’s stance on diversity and inclusion and how it is a priority to them. However, the company has suffered from bad press lately under the stewardship of founder and CEO Travis Kalanick. Uber employees have described the firm’s workplace as hostile and oppressive. As a way of protecting its business reputation, Uber had to look into various ways of avoiding the scandals and, thereby, creating an environment where the organization would seem committed to promoting diversity and where they can better serve millions of customers.
Employment Law
Susan Fowler’s complaint of being a target of sexual harassment by her manager can best be classified under the “Hostile Work Environment Claims.” An employee can file this claim when they feel that their workplace is hostile or intimidating due to the cases of sexual harassment. This can arise in various ways, such as the requests for sexual favors as well as unwanted sexual advances from colleagues. As such, it is clear that Susan falls under the “Hostile Work Environment Claims” category of sexual harassment.
Harassment Type
According to Ms. Fowler, she was sexually harassed by her supervisor. Unfortunately, no action was brought forth against him despite her complaints. She claims that this might have been because he is a ‘high performer.’ The fact that other female employees in the company reported similar cases shows that this is a repeat offender. There is also a reasonable cause to believe that the human resource manager was covering up for him. It is, therefore, evident that Susan Fowler was a victim of sexual harassment from the manager despite there being no disciplinary action taken against him.
Uber’s Actions
Uber took corrective steps to limit the liability it would have suffered. The first step was to apologize for some of the managers’ actions. Uber also provided testimonials from some female executives as well as board members on how the company’s work environment was positive. In addition to this, the company began probing workplace procedures and policies. It was, therefore, clear that Uber intended to maintain a clean public image and hence avoid any negative publicity.
EEOC and Affirmative Action
Upon reviewing Uber’s diversity report, it is evident that the company has not violated EEOC and Affirmative Action laws. EEOC is clear on the stance that there should be no discrimination in the promotion or job opportunities due to sex, race, or color, among other diversity aspects. 36% of Uber’s workforce are women, and this is a testament to the company’s efforts to promote equality and diversity at the workplace. Affirmative Action Laws aim at empowering the minority groups, such as Hispanics and Blacks, with jobs. Uber’s workforce is composed of 9% Blacks and 6% Hispanics. Therefore, such statistics point to the company’s efforts to abide by EEOC and Affirmative Action policies.
Diversity Matters
One major benefit of diversity is that a mixed workplace comes with many positives such as various strengths, abilities, experiences, as well as thought processes. The different ages, gender, ethnicities, as well as race, create a rich culture. For Uber, this aspect of diversity is important in promoting its brand image. The company’s image will also improve in the eyes of the public and major stakeholders (Robbins et al., 2020). A company that is keen on promoting workplace diversity will most likely benefit largely from it.
Benefits and Challenges of a Diverse Workforce
A diverse workforce automatically means a rich office culture with increased teamwork. The company will have a wider range of skills and resources from which it can benefit. Some of the challenges include the risk of discrimination claims from minority groups. Moreover, some employees may find adjusting to the various individual cultures shocking. Therefore, diversity may have challenges, but the benefits from promoting it far outweigh the challenges due to it.
Summary
Legal Provisions of the Uber Case
According to this case, there are some laws that Uber has attempted to work within. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII upholds workplace diversity by prohibiting employment bias based on national origin, sex, race, or color. The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, as well as the Race Relations Act of 1976, also work to promote workplace diversity (Robinson et al., 2020). As such, it is evident that there are many laws in place that uphold the concept of equality and diversity in the workplace.
In conclusion, it is the role of the human resource department to ensure that diversity in the workplace is upheld and that such efforts are implemented with efficiency. As seen in this case, all employees must conduct themselves with the utmost decency and good ethical standards (Jones, 2020). It is crucial that the country’s laws clearly outline HR standards that are based on diversity and equality laws, as mentioned earlier (Jones, 2020). It is essential to consider that EEOC demands all HR managers and the company’s workers to undergo training in laws touching on equal employment opportunity.
References
Jones, A. L. (2020). An employer’s responsibility for diversity in the workplace. Entrepreneurship Law. Web.
Robbins, H., Ivanova, S., & Rose, P. (2020). Diversity and equal employment opportunity in the US and EU. Thomson Reuters Practical Law. Web.