1.     Let’s begin our discussion on recruitment by using a fact pattern from a litigated case. Cone Mills Corporation had several recruiting procedures that gave preferential treatment to applicants who either had family members or friends working for the company. One of these procedures was to give priority to applicants who had family members employed by the company. The other procedure entailed having an unwritten policy that walk-in applicants had to have renewed every two weeks. This created a situation where only those walk-in applicants who had friends or family in the company would renew their applications because they would be the only ones informed of the informal rule, which was not presented in any manual or policy. These recruiting procedures were challenged as being discriminatory towards blacks in general, especially black women, because the informal network responsible for recruiting new employees was unavailable to them. The company claimed that the procedures were not designated to be discriminatory, but rather, to create a loyal family atmosphere within the plant (Lea v. Cone Mills Corp., 3001 F. Supp. 97).

  Should employers be able to recruit through employee referrals and word-of-mouth? Does the law allow for such a recruitment technique? What specific restrictions does Title VII place on an employer’s ability to recruit and hire? As part of this discussion, refer to the cases of EEOC v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works and EEOC v. Consolidated Service System in Chapter 4.

2.     Affirmative action is a topic that tends to elicit strong opinions. Exhibit 5-11 in Chapter 5 sets forth opposing views on the issue of affirmative action. In our attempt to discuss affirmative action from an employer and employee perspective, please read United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO v. Weber and the discussion of Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California in Chapter 5.

Referencing the materials in the text, explain affirmative action in conjunction with Title VII mandates from a legal perspective. What limits, if any, does Title VII place on affirmative action? How can companies manage affirmative action programs to encourage widespread recruitment, but avoid the stigma of quota systems as charged by affirmative action critics? Let’s have a great academic, professional threaded discussion about affirmative action.

Responses to my friend

1. Affirmative action can be defined as a set of procedures designed to prevent unlawful discrimination and provide equal opportunities in education, employment, and other areas for minorities, women and other individuals belonging to unprotected groups. The purpose of affirmative action is to make sure that all citizens are treated fairly under the law in looking for professional employment or seeking admission to an educational program.

Reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action

2. This is sort of a tricky question when it comes to recruitment. I guess this depends on the situation itself on how quickly the company needs a candidate for the position. Sometime a company has very limit amount of time to fill a role when it is vacant, that is why companies want a two weeks notice for they can prepare for this change. A question can be asked did this employee really deserved the job, or did they get the job because they knew somebody in the company. The laws does allow companies to do this if the candidate have all the required skills and education to perform the duty offered. The Title Vll restricts employers for discrimination against race, religion, color, and sex. This has been a challenge for some companies, because immigration in the United States have been constantly growing. I think companies should give others outside a chance  to apply for the positions they are opening. The law does allow them to do so as long as the person meets the requirements, and other candidates are not being discriminated against under the TitleVll that was put into place.