Sample Law Argumentative Essay on Employee’s Rights

Employee’s Rights

Employees have certain employment rights that protect them against unfair treatment at the workplace. In relation to Schurr v. Resorts Int’l Hotel case, Shurr, an employee in the company was entitled to receive his rights as an employee including permanent employment. In an employment context, employees are entitled to certain rights that enhance and safeguard their employees. These include protection from arbitrary terminations and the provision of equal opportunities.

Guided by the Labour laws, employees are given the right to make an affirmative action when their rights are infringed. For example, in the United States of America, Federal laws in the labor department, allow employees with disabilities to bring take action against unfair treatment by the employer (Steven, 2002). Schurr, being an employee with the resorts international hotel should be given the first priority in case a vacancy arises. However, Boykin is selected as the employee, pursuant to the federal requirements on minority representation.

According to the New Jersey laws, all casino-licensed holders were entitled to an affirmative action when their employment opportunities interfered (Frank, 2005). Contrary, the state and casino regulations required that at least a minority constituting 25% of employees be from the minority group. During Shurr and Boykin’s application, the minimum threshold had not been achieved. Upon Shurr’s decision to petition the case, the court held that his rights had not been affected since Boykid was a minority race and was to be given the first priority. Critics argue that though this has the effect of preventing discrimination in employment, the goal of such laws may contradict those of the organization. Therefore, management must seek to attain a racially balanced workforce and not to maintain equality. Rather, affirmative actions must be temporary, flexible in response to situations, and not permanent.

Title VII provisions prohibit any form of prejudice in employment with regard to race. These include offering racial preferences in the placement of personnel in organizations. The provisions of Title VII are subject to provisions of employment laws. For instance, the right to bring an affirmative action is denied when race is a factor in the appointment and promotion decisions of a company. These situations include the desire to attain a racial balance in certain job categories and strategies that do not interfere with the rights of the majority.

According to Title V11, an employer should consider his ratio of minority groups before recruitment of qualified individuals from the Labour market. Steven argues that affirmative action plan does not always set aside opportunities to be filled by the minorities but they are factors to consider in distributing positions in an organization. This is subject pursuant to the law’s requirement to achieve a balanced workforce. Proponents of this argument assert that having racial diversity at the workplace is important in bringing diverse skills to the global economy.

Critics argue that the desire to have a racially balanced workforce may facilitate discrimination at the workplace. In upholding the regulations, certain individuals may be preferred for job placement than their qualified counterparts, thus affecting the performance of an organization. In an attempt to comply with the discrimination laws, certain individuals may be deprived of their rights (Steven, 2002). Schurr, being an experienced employee is dropped in preference to Boykin due to racial considerations.

Discrimination occurs when an employee is handled in a prejudicial manner in a workplace in relation to their race, disability, or sex. These biased treatments are exercised in recruitment, promotion, compensation, and job termination processes. According to the USA federal laws, it is illegal to practice discrimination in employment. For instance, the USA age discrimination act protects persons aged above 40 years from age discrimination in hiring, promotions, and compensation schemes.

Employment discrimination regulations prevent biased treatment of employees by employers. Amendments in the United States Constitution protect the federal government from denying individual’s right to due process and equality. Under the employment context, these rights inhibit discriminatory practices (Frank, 2005). These may include biasedness in employee treatment based on factors such as gender and sex. In addition, the federal provisions ensure that a fair process is employed in employment termination processes.

In the late 20th century, the amendments of the Civil Rights Act provided equality for every individual before the law and provided damages available to injured parties. The equal pay act served to ensure uniformity in the employee compensation scheme (Frank, 2005). The Act requires that for similar work outputs and efforts, workers must get equal pay. These employment regulations are enhanced equality, including protecting the rights of disabled persons.

In conclusion, achieving a racially balanced workforce is critical in ensuring equity, to employees despite their characteristics variations. Proponents of this argument assert that it introduces new skills in an organization. However, critics argue that it is a sympathetic way of ensuring equity rather than offering equal opportunities to every qualified individual. In particular, Schurr had been barred from getting permanent employment with the company pursuant to the federal laws on minority interest. While this decision is itself justifiable, it does not qualify to enhance everyone’s rights based on one’s skills and competence. Title V11 provisions prevent race discrimination based on regulatory requirements. Pursuant to the requirements, maintenance of required race ratios in job recruitment is necessary.             Managers must however consider their situational and regulatory needs in applying this law.


Frank, J. (2005). Employment Discrimination Litigation: Behavioral, Quantitative, and Legal Perspectives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Steven, S.N. (2002). Civil rights litigation and attorney fees annual handbook. New York: Suny Press.