Analysis of U.S. Laws and Court Rulings on Diversity and Inclusion

This paper evaluates the effectiveness and impact of U.S. laws and court rulings on diversity and inclusion in the workplace. The author explores the role of key legislation, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA Amendments Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1969. The discussion covers the shift of companies towards integrating diversity beyond mere compliance. The paper analyzes the impact of these laws and court rulings on achieving workplace diversity, focusing on issues such as affirmative action, equal opportunity, and non-discriminatory practices. It also examines the importance of diversity in contemporary business environments, emphasizing that diverse talents and capabilities are essential for success. The conclusion highlights how compliance with U.S. court rulings and laws has promoted and supported diversity and inclusion in workplaces over the past few decades, contributing to the development of efficient industry leaders and community visionaries.

Running head: U.S. LAWS AND COURT RULINGS
U.S. LAWS AND COURT RULINGS
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1
U.S. LAWS AND COURT RULINGS
Introduction
The need for diversity in contemporary business domain has been vital factor which
stimulated United States Supreme Court determination of attaining diversity and inclusion
through compelling governmental interest. In recent times, racial and cultural diversity and
inclusion is no longer optional, but considered as an important realism of life (Bisom-Rapp,
2018). The following paper aims to evaluate effectiveness and impact of the U.S laws and
rulings in relation to diversity and inclusion of employees.
Discussion
Considering the rapid developments in the cultural setting of the United States, number of
companies has shifted the diversity as well as inclusion indicator beyond compliance to the
systematic integration. The U.S law and court rulings namely Title VII Civil Rights Act (1964),
ADA Amendments Act, Civil Rights Act (1991), Rehabilitation Act (1973) and Age
Discrimination Act (1969) have been effectual in achieving workplace diversity in the United
States. According to Carter (2018), as the Title VII and Section 1981 assures equal opportunity
besides non-discriminatory treatment in the private sector service setting, companies ought to
prudently monitor emerging case regulation in order to observe whether courts have started to
ease standards for voluntary affirmative action objectives (Carter, 2018).
Although Title VII prohibits staffs from making service decisions based on an
individuals’ ethnic background, national origin and race. Reports have claimed that s
per Executive Order 11246; few government contractors should have positive action strategies in
order to recognize instances where employers do not employment of qualified minorities
(Bisom-Rapp, 2018). However, irrespective of these fundamental exceptions, number of
companies has been failing to use affirmative action to employ more minority staffs only to

2
U.S. LAWS AND COURT RULINGS
upsurge the level of diversity of their workforce (Fineman & Grear, 2016). Consequently, the
concept of Fisher case primarily applies to educational institutes and not companies.
Furthermore, employers in the United States cannot rely on the Fisher decision in order to defend
using affirmative action for specifically progressing the diversity and inclusion of their
employees as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids companies from bearing in mind
the notion of race while deliberating employment decisions.
As per studies, EEOC enforces all of these laws and provides oversight and coordination
of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies. Other federal
laws, not enforced by U.S EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) chiefly prohibit
discrimination as well as reprisal against federal employees as well as candidates. By drawing
insights, from effectiveness of the U.S Court rulings, Riccucci and Van Ryzin (2017) have noted
that individuals show propensity of constituting views and perceptions of the world as well as
value sets. Markus et al. (2017) are of the opinion that greater diversity of mental models ideally
characterizes additional perspectives as well as standpoints on a problem or undertaking. In the
view of Riccucci and Van Ryzin (2017), diverse and inclusive teams tend to have great
accessibility to greater informational systems by means of their external communication
channels which will eventually improve the value of supervisory and decision-making.
According to Markus et al. (2017), individuals bring with them diverse views of the world as
well as value sets. Their cultural background, social positioning, involvements as well as skill
sets which will influence the mental models.
However Fineman and Grear (2016) have noted that although the new Supreme Court
rulings failed to address race as a influence in employment ranges, they show potential of
generating sustained uncertainty vis-à-vis the legitimacy of diversity, inclusion as well as

3
U.S. LAWS AND COURT RULINGS
affirmative action initiatives in the employment setting. Furthermore, promoting the principle of
ethnic and communal diversity, US court rulings have identified the precise prominence of
diversity in contemporary business environment: U.S employers however have made it apparent
that talents and capabilities required in recent progressively global marketplace can only
specifically be developed with the exposure to extensively diverse individuals, cultures, notions
as well as viewpoints (Carter, 2018). Furthermore, effectiveness of the U.S court rulings and
laws have been accurate as in assessing diversity and inclusive action inventiveness,
organizations in the United States must take into consideration the reproach and caution of the
U.S Supreme Court's claiming that employers might deliberate race or ethnicity only as a
positive factor in particular candidature of a candidate without separating the individual from
assessment with all other applicants for the unfilled position (Rhoads, 2016).
Conclusion
Hence to conclude, since the past few decades, compliance to U.S court rulings and law
have promoted and supported diversity and inclusion in workplaces. As a result, companies in
the US which have made profound as well as balanced commitment to diversity and inclusion,
chiefly throughout the contemporary international economic situation have developed as efficient
industry leaders as well as community visionaries in addition to have comprehended their bottom
lines development.

4
U.S. LAWS AND COURT RULINGS
References
Bisom-Rapp, S. (2018). What We Know about Equal Employment Opportunity Law after Fifty
Years of Trying. Emp. Rts. & Emp. Pol'y J., 22, 337.
Carter, S. D. (2018). Increased Workforce Diversity by Race, Gender, and Age and Equal
Employment Opportunity Laws. Gender and Diversity: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools,
and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 380.
Fineman, M. A., & Grear, A. (2016). Equality, autonomy, and the vulnerable subject in law and
politics. In Vulnerability (pp. 25-40). Routledge.
Markus, T., Hillebrand, H., Hornidge, A. K., Krause, G., & Schlüter, A. (2017). Disciplinary
diversity in marine sciences: the urgent case for an integration of research. ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 75(2), 502-509.
Rhoads, R. A. (2016). Student activism, diversity, and the struggle for a just society. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 189.
Riccucci, N. M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance
social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21-30.