Overview

In order to assess DWIs’ policies and practices involving equal employment opportunity, the risk management department has been reviewing recent case law regarding sex discrimination. One landmark case involves Sarah Crone bringing a sex discrimination suit against UPS for denial of promotion based on sex. It is important for DWIs’ managers to understand the outcome of the case, the future implications of the ruling, and how DWIs’ policies and practices stand in such situations.

Outcome of the Case

As mentioned, Sarah Crone sued UPS, citing sex discrimination as the reason she was not promoted. Crone, currently a dispatcher for UPS, asked her department manager, Whitaker, for a recommendation for the position of Feeder Department Supervisor (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002). Testimony in the case reveals Whitaker to Crone he would not recommend her for the position because she lacked the confrontational skill necessary to supervise that department. More specifically, Whitaker told Crone he was scared she would cry of the drivers confronted her on the job. Whitaker then met with the Division Manager of Transportation, Phil Bettis, and expressed the same concerns regarding her application. Evidence in the case does not indicate Whitaker told Bettis he was afraid crone would cry specifically, just that he felt she was unable to withstand the aggressive attitudes of the drivers in that department. Ultimately, Bettis decided not to promote Crone, citing her lack of confrontational skills, leadership values, and personal skills.

Crone in turn filed a suit with the district court of Arkansas. The courts found Crone provided insufficient evidence she was denied promotion based on her sex. Crone failed to cite Whitakers’ accusation she would cry under pressure as evidence of sex discrimination (U.S. Court of Appeals). The court found it within UPSs’ legal rights to deny her the promotion based on her lack of confrontational skills, leadership values, and personal skills. This decision was based on past cases involving both men and women being denied promotions based on the skills necessary for the position. Despite Whitakers’ comments being derogatory, the ultimate decision was up to Bettis. At no time did Bettis state or imply Crones’ lack of these skills were because she was a woman.

Crone then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th District. The Appeals court also cited Crones’ failure to provide sufficient evidence sex discrimination occurred. The appeals court also ruled UPS was well within its right to deny promotion based on attributes and skills required for the position.

Future Implications

Employers wishing to avoid sex discrimination suits may cite the ruling on this case in future cases. However, the language used by both the district court and the appeals courts clearly states UPS used a legal evaluation process that did not include sex to make the decision. Both courts cited Crones’ past inability to deal with confrontation and struggle with people skills, both of which she admitted to in court, as the apparent decision maker for the promotion (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2002). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) exists to ensure unfair treatment does not happen. Unfair treatment can happen both ways. For example, if the job had been given to Crone, and she performed poorly, it may have suggested Crone was promoted because she was a woman and UPS wanted to avoid a lawsuit.

The EEOC and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 still allow employers to choose the best individual for the job. In this case, the abilities and skills required for the job required a person who has shown his/her ability to deal with confrontation, poor attitudes, and lead the company’s drivers. In this case, by her own admission, Crone had not shown any of those skills in her time with UPS. A recent settlement involving a similar case shows this case did little to allow discrimination in the future. In 2004, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a statement to the press regarding a $475,000 settlement awarded to a class of 25 women who sued Trendwest incorporation for sex discrimination in promotion. The actions of Trendwest were different from UPSs’, in that they failed to promote based on merit and skills. They denied promotion based on sex alone.

Amendment to DWI Employment Policy and Training

DWIs’ policy regarding equal employment opportunity is concurrent with the laws. However, training is always necessary to ensure managers do not get the company into bad situations. The Equal Opportunities Commission suggests evaluating hiring and promotion policies to ensure they are clear the company use evaluations that do not consider sex, except where allowed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Equal Opportunity Commission, 2006). In addition, the managers in charge of hiring and promoting employees should be well trained in what not to say in the evaluation process. Situation like Crone v. UPS are unavoidable in the business world. The actions of Whitaker would not be tolerated at DWI, and he would be terminated for making those sexist statements. However, Bettis’ evaluation of Crones’ work history is perfectly acceptable. DWI would not promote a man or a woman to a position he/she could not handle. The important aspect of the process is employing managers with strong moral and ethical commitments that when placed in this situation, would have set Crone down and explained he/she could not recommend her for the promotion because of the problems with confrontation and people skills she had in the past.

References

Equal Opportunity Commission. (2006). The code of practice on sex discrimination, explained section by section. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/eoc/Default1386.html?page15577

United States Court of Appeals 8th District. (2002). Sarah Crone v. United Parcel Service. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/013595P.pdf

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2004). Trendwest Resorts Inc. to pay $475,000 for sex discrimination in promotion of women. Retrieved June 14, 2009 from http://eeoc.gov/press/6-25-04.html