United States Public Administration Actions Analysis

Introduction

Public administration is the process of developing and implementing government policies that enhance social justice in society. Public administration does not only apply to government agencies but also non governmental and private firms, which are supposed to conduct activities for the greater good of society. (Rabin, Hildreth, & Miller, 1998) One policy in the United States that affects public administration is the equal employment and affirmative action policy. The federal government being the largest employer in the US is expected to have a workforce that reflects the diversity in the US population. (Gulick, Anderson & Bancroft-Whitney Company, 2001) Prior to the enactment of these policies a massive under representation of racial minorities and other forms of marginalization in the workforce was evident. Hispanics, Blacks women and the disabled were disenfranchised from accessing good jobs and education opportunities in higher learning institution. A representative workforce is supposed to ensure that all ‘segments in society’ are incorporated into the workforce and the equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws are put in place to achieve this goal. (Rosenbloom & O’Leary, 1997).

Representative Public administration is aimed at ensuring that the workforce in public or private institutions is more accommodative of the population it serves in institutions like schools, hospitals, police force and military among others. The demographics of a given population are diverse and the diversity’s range from religious and ethnic affiliation, gender, culture and race. The public administration polices help to ensure that the typically sidelined people get equal chance of being part of a workforce based on achievement and competence; in other words, it aims at getting rid of subjective prejudiced profiling within the workforce. (Vigoda-Gadot & Eran, 2002). This paper intends to show how equal employment opportunities have and affirmative action polices create a representative public administration. (Rabin , Hildreth & Miller, 1998) Specifically, this paper will consider the human resource effort to recruit and hire a representative work force based on ethical and economic considerations. However before embarking on the issue, one note worthy issue is that representative public administration is an independent variable meaning it is autonomous of effects of changes in demographics on the other hand affirmative action and equal employment laws are dependent on the changes in public administration policy. Organizations thus become intervening variables in this system. (Lockton, 2005 ,Ullmann, 2003)

Actions and Consequences

Affirmative action refers to deliberated discriminate actions used to promote standards of a historically segregate in non-dominant group. The actions are specifically targeted to the education and employment sectors, to boost access in them by women and socio-politically sidelined groups like blacks and the Hispanic people. (Guerin & DelPo, 2006).. The rationale behind, affirmative action is that it aims to balance out the historic effects of discrimination by egging on public sectors to give priority to these people regardless of whether there are others who are more qualified for the position. Some schools districts are particularly keen on engaging a representative workforce and give black and Hispanic teachers’ precedence white teachers while employing new teachers. Other targeted recruitment programs include police selection in various police stations. Women have more leeway in carrier advancement as recruitment than the men. The situation is similar in the military. These actions level out inconsistency and inequality in the workforce. In some cases quotas are used to encourage qualified candidates from marginalized group to apply for jobs. Nowadays, it is common to see job advertisements which include the small print indicating ‘female applicants are encouraged to apply or ‘positions available, female applicants, only’.

However skeptics argue that affirmative action laws are just another way to propagate discrimination. They express views like unfairness as other more qualified candidates lack positions in organizations simply because they are from a supposedly dominant group. Most times not out of choice but birth. They argue that if marginalized groups want affirmative action they must fight for it not by imposing discriminate laws but by virtue of achieving outstanding qualifications and competency just as everyone else. Sure, it becomes disturbing when one is denied entry to college or employment in order to leave space for a socio-politically marginalized person. To some extent these feelings are founded and worth listening to. (Ullmann, 2003)

Nevertheless, the situation about affirmative action is not an easy one to digest. Non-dominant groups remain so not because they lack competence but because the past effects of discrimination inevitably pull them back regardless of the efforts they apply (Sadler, 1996). This is because past discrimination limited their level of literacy or experience in a job market. Additionally, the measures of success or qualifications used historically were based in favour of the dominant group thus empowering them even more. What more a dominant group is likely to discriminate unconsciously due to familiarity and similarity to someone from the dominant group (Evan, 2001). Redlining, glass ceilings stereotyping racial prejudice and profiling others are not issues that occurred overnight. They developed over a long period of time and hence erasing their effects becomes a task that needs public policy intervention life affirmative action and equal employment opportunity laws. Affirmative action thus becomes a sort of compensation for the disadvantages or ills that the group has experienced in the past.

Terms like institutional sexism or institutional racism are often used by protest groups of affirmative action. The workplace is not immune to the effects of affirmative action. Laws regarding equal chance of employment have forced organizations to be more sensitive to gender and race in their workforce. This follows the realization that the work place image should be representative of the general population of the society it thrives in. If for instance, the community is made up of diverse cultures then these qualities should be seen within the workforce especially the public workforce.

Although arguments against affirmative action are ostensibly correct, the truth is affirmative action merely ensures that minority (marginalized) group are given an equal chance to access education and battle out for position that they would otherwise not have had access to. In other words, it ensures that systematically excluded people get include into the system and let the best person win. (Sadler, 1996,Guerin & DelPo, 2006). It has been the case that individuals from excluded groups are more qualified than the ones in the dominant group. This is because they tend to work harder than others in the absence of affirmative action in order to be at par with them. An institution, which practices affirmative action in recruitment process in order to have a more representative workforce, becomes more successful than another.

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws encompass laws that prohibit any form of discrimination on unsubstantiated lines like age, sex, disability, race, color, family background or religious affiliation.

For example the age discrimination in employment act (ADEA) passed in 1967, forbids discrimination from employment on the basis of age. (Guerin & DelPo, 2006). A person over the age of 40 years in legible to secure employment and it provides channel for individuals to file complaints to court directly without the rigors of passing through firms complaint procedure. Title VII provides that a person should launch formal complaints with a firm’s administration an exhaust all possible solution about discrimination before proceeding to court for litigation. The grace period is usually 180 days. Other laws that prohibit employment discrimination include the Rehabilitation Act, Title VI of the civil rights Act of 1963 and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1973. (Gulick, Anderson & Bancroft-Whitney Company. 2001) These laws ensure that persons capable of doing the required functions of a job should be given a chance to do so. Wage discrimination (sex-based wage payment system) is equally disallowed in these Acts. The ADA Act provides that employers should provide facilitate people with disability to perform their jobs comfortably instead of discriminating against (Ford, Notestine & Hill, 2000).

Employees should also be paid equal wages depending on the job group regardless of their gender. This is because the effort in terms of skill, responsibility, physical or mental effort is the same despite gender differences. Men are particularly prone to discrimination at the workplace whereby their working conditions are harsher than the women’s. Perhaps this is discrimination because if not, then the men should be compensated for that. Seemingly, the issue of discrimination on basis of race and skin color is high yet to totally disappear in the work force particularly in white color career like law, medicine, politics and film industry. This is because it is really hard to pin rejection to a job on the basis of race. The process is sustainable although the impact is visible for all to see. It is common to find very few black women in these industries excelling to high ranks because the dominant group gets prominence. It is just the way the system operates and the equal employment opportunity and affirmative action tries to erase these frameworks from society. (Guerin & DelPo, 2006).

Equal opportunity laws and affirmative actions polices have had far reaching effects to universities and colleges. For instance the university of New Mexico policy statement recognizes equal employment opportunity and affirmative action, in areas of training, benefits and services, advancement, promotions, transfer, termination, recruitment and compensation and other areas relevant. This means that job related requirements are the key determinants used in selection and recruitment process. Its affirmative action stance ensures that qualified persons in protected group get promoted in order to achieve an all-encompassing representation of the population in the workforce.

The federal government has also been at the forefront of promoting affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. The social security administration have implemented a policy that social security administration have implemented a policy that gives priority to having people from non dominant groups say the African Americans and Hispanic in its offices. This policy has been effect for a number of years now and black workers are hired more than the whites. However, this action has not gone down well with others arguing that a government agency should not practice any form of racial and by implementing affirmative action it contravenes this law. (Guerin & DelPo, 2006).

The equal employment opportunity laws bind companies (private or government) to hire people from minority groups more than the dominant to curb the problem of under representation. In cases where two successful candidates come from minority group and the other from a superior group, then companies are bound to recruit the one from minority group as provided in the equal employment opportunity act.

Since the enactment and amendments of the affirmative action and equal employment opportunity Act and other Acts against various forms of discrimination, the courts have seen a great rise in cases of reverse discrimination and lawsuits regarding violations of employment rights. (Evan, 2001).

While it is true that indeed affirmative action and equal employment opportunities do provide equal representation of all groups in institutions or private and government. The polices are also counter productive. For one, these laws utilize the same discrimination they intend to kick out in order to promote the standards of access of minority groups. It makes one wonder who the bad guy is, so to speak. To a considerable extent, don’t these laws promote legal discrimination, resentments and prejudice between the beneficiaries of the affirmative action and equal employment at the expense of those negative affected by the polices? Would it then be a wonder that the qualities chaps sidelined from entry to a school or employment in a given job engaged in heinous crimes? Besides, affirmative action works against law stipulations because each individual has equal right to the other and no one should be forced by law to sacrifice their rights in order to compensate others. Another argument echoed against affirmative action is that economic hardships affect every person hence limiting access to education par se, not racial or ethnic disposition. (Sadler, 1996). Hence affirmative action and equal employment opportunity foundations are weak. It is thus inappropriate, they say, to use superficial metrics like race, sex color or religion to gauge disadvantage. Most times, affirmative action works in favour of the not-so qualified individuals over qualified candidates thus working as a disincentive to organization productivity and hindering the economy to work at its full capacity. If affirmative action were to happen on a grand scale then individuals in the negative side of the affirmative action would be demoralized to work hard or apply for jobs hence rendering the policy counter productive. (Rosenbloom & O’Leary, 1997, Sadler, 1996). Thus, affirmative action creates a vicious cycle of discrimination whereby at one time one group is a discriminator and the next it becomes the discriminated.

Equal opportunity and affirmative action creates a representative public administration in the sense that the end result is a diversified workforce in all sectors of economy. The end justifies the means in this case. Affirmative action encourages participation of minority groups’ labeled so on the basis of race, gender, religious affiliation and more.

The public sector workforce office is an agency that demonstrates how employment opportunity and affirmative action works to promote representative public administration. The main function of this agency is to facilitate coordination and implementation of equal employment opportunity polices in its area of jurisdiction. It develops programs that ensure that members comply with equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. Through its programs, it ensures that unlawful discrimination and harassment is stamped out of the workforce as well as providing assistance to individuals who have experienced past discrimination in order to overcome. (Rosenbloom & O’Leary, 1997, Sadler, 1996).

Organizations that employ equal employment and affirmative action policy device policies that govern the workforce and especially the human resource not disadvantage simply because of their gender, disability or race. Organizations with such policy and structure, workforce comprises of diverse cultures and the people therein feel valued as well as respected. In such organizations, workers are free to choose their career paths and are able to progress in their jobs in order to exploit their full potential.

These organizations ensure that the disadvantaged groups of people get a chance to make up for the lost chances in education and employment. Examples of programs devised to assist individuals to this end include training program, self-improvement and career development programs targeted to these groups. In this way, employees are guaranteed of getting higher paying jobs thus breaking the cycle of poverty and illiteracy.

An important thing to note is that organizations that comply with equal employment opportunity and affirmative action do not do so blindly. Although, the target group of affirmative actions the women, disability or racial minorities merit selection comes first and not merely the act of seeping in more minority groups within the organization. These organizations strive to get the best from a minority group an dif this person is not available, then a person from the dominant group is absorbed into the organization.

Private firms also have an obligation to as representative and indiscriminate as possible. They should create an atmosphere where every individual is valued and given equal chance to progress in careers that they close.

Federal laws that ensure responsible public administration include the civil right act of 1991, which provide that individuals who are intentionally discriminated against in employment seek monetary damages for it.

In the U.S the equal employment opportunity commission (EEOC) functions as a watchdog to ensuring that federal agencies implement fair employment chances and practices in the agencies. (Rabin , Hildreth & Miller, 1998). The civil service reform Act 1978 Forbids discrimination on attributes that do not adversely affect job performance such as marital status or political association. The act also protects employees who blow the whistle on discriminated against. In addition superior individuals in Human Resource department who engage in corrupt practices of discriminating applicants on bases or color, nationality, gender and such like are seriously dealt with in the CSRA Act. The CSRA regulations are enforced through offices like OPM (office of personnel management, MSPB (merit system protection board) and the OSC i.e. office of special counsel. (Gulick, Anderson & Bancroft-Whitney Company, 2001).

So, how does one pick out discriminatory practices and what are the federal laws regulating this issue? A discriminatory practice is any biased, prejudiced or inequitable practice that intentionally marginalizes some people from others. Laws that prohibit discrimination include Title VII of the civil rights Act 1964 ADA, and ADEA. These laws make it illegal to discriminate persons in aspects of employment. (Evan, 2001) For instance during hiring, internship airing, paying fringe benefits, access to company facilities, training leaves, job advertisement, retrenchment, promotion, transfers among others. Discriminatory practices in this laws include reprisal against employees who file complaints regarding discrimination or who take part in assisting investigations of discrimination, decision making based on stereotyping and racial profiling, declining an employment offer to a person due to his/her affiliation to a given race, political party, nationality or such like either through marriage, friendship or ethic ties in a representative organization all employees should be made aware of their rights without fear of retaliation and channels of expressing complaints and grievances should be accessible an dearly to work with.

Discrimination may also occur unintentionally especially when employers require that employers use a certain language and not the other or whereby employers seek proper documentation before employment. While these practices may be designed to ensure that illegal immigrants don’t pose problem to the company, the candidates who are subjected to this process may find it discriminatory. An employer who wishes to enforce certain language speech may be forced to justify this requirement in terms of it being necessary to conduct business.

Employers are also required by the equal employment opportunity Act to be accommodative or religious believes held by employers so long as they do not pose threat to follow employees or impact negatively job performance and consistency. Sexual discrimination prohibited in Title VII of equal employment opportunity provides that requests for sexual favours in exchange for employment promotion, better working terms of favourable performance appraisal is an injustice and punishable by law. Also on the same note, pregnancy-based discrimination or discrimination on sexually transmitted diseases is also prohibited. These conditions should be treated similar to other conditions or sickness and should not lead to suspension lay off or segregation based on this factor. Additionally, sexual harassment and discrimination is another unethical practice hindering the goal of representative workforce. Due to the divergent nature of sexual harassment, there is lack of a sublime method of prevention modes of sexual harass come in my categories running from traditional (non/less) stringent ways to modern (technical/developed) ways where highly technical gadgets have been used to advance sexual harassment. However, the main problem in preventing sexual discrimination has been contributed by the social-cultural and legal dimensions conflict which compromise fight against discrimination in the workforce.

This means as long as the person can comfortably and effectively perform task assigned, he/she should be retained or absorbed to the workplace.

The ADEA submits that employers should not discriminate qualified candidates due to age unless age is a bonafide occupational qualification (BFOQ) other forms of discrimination on basis of age include paying benefits differently according to age or limiting apprenticeship programs to people within a certain age group.

Perhaps the most comprehensive law that ensures the equal employment opportunity goals and affirmative action targets are met is the Americans with disability Act. This act recognizes that people with disability are intentionally discriminated against whatever employer’s come across them. This is especially to the individuals with visible handicaps. Often, disabled people are portrayed as helpless and sub beings incapable of performing tasks proficiently as compared to the non-disabled. Of course, these thoughts are merely subjective and offer no rational reason behind them. The Act prohibits these subjective think while recruiting individuals to an organization. The act defines a disabled person as an individual with physical or mental impairment which limits the person to perform normal activities such as seeing, hearing, walking, talking and learning with ease. These people may thus be trainable or un-trainable to work in an organization (Rosenbloom & O’Leary, 1997, Gulick, Anderson & Bancroft-Whitney Company. 2001).

Discrimination against disabled occurs when an individual with disability readily meets the set qualifications for a job in terms of academic, knowledge and skills as well as experience and with or without reasonable accommodation is able to perform the job duties effectively but is denied employment. An organization that fails the disabled persons is said to be discriminatory this impeding on the achievement of equal employment opportunity goals. Organization compliment to equal employment opportunity should provide benefits to disabled similar to the ones given to non-disabled, extend assistance such as job modification, better timings, crucial devices or equipment to facilitate job performance by disabled among others. However exceptions are made to this law especially when providing these accommodative programs or facilities cause undue hardship to the employer in the terms of exorbitant cost.

Additionally, employers are restricted form probing disabled people about the nature or cause of disability as this information is confidential and also because this information may influence employment decision to the negative because of subjective nature of human beings. On the contrary, employers are free to ask about the individuals’ ability to perform a job and request medical examinations on areas related or consistent with job specifications.

Controversies of Affirmative action

While affirmative action is a noble practice, the situation on the ground reveals that most time the beneficiaries of these policies are the privileged people from the minority groups and not the disadvantage individuals in the disadvantage group. Often than not, it is the upper class and middle class individuals that benefit. In some colleges and universities affirmative action policies have been banned after a strong push by citizens undo regulations that pin enrolment to colleges on racial gender preferences. Examples of these universities include; the University of California, Berkeley and UCLA school of law among others. In states like Michigan Texas Florida, Washington and California the use of race and gender discrimination in school admission is banned practice thus illegal.

The underlying principle behind this ban is that individuals recruited based on race and not qualification did not match up to the vigorous programs offered at the schools hence the posing a problem. The media as always has had a hand in either promoting affirmative action and down grading affirmative action in society. One thing that the media has done is portraying affirmative action as a combination of racist and sexist. The practice has been seen to be unfair as more black and Mexican students get scholarship to prestigious colleges while the poor white peers are left out. However Article 22 of the equal employment opportunity Act stipulates that affirmative action is justified if it is intended to correct past aspects of a system discrimination.

Further it provides that affirmative action should cease after the objectives for which it was enforced are achieved so that the consequence of unequal or special treatment among race is repeated simply put, affirmative action should only take place up until a balance in the learning institutions or workforce is achieved, beyond that, then the practice becomes counter productive. Therefore, organizations that employ affirmative action and equal employment opportunity do so within a given time frame and within set limits. This is because the polices or laws when enforced for a long time tend to deviate from the intended goals.

At the workplace employees, supervisors, administrators and directors need to familiarize themselves with affirmative action plans and equal employment opportunity laws. Since the introduction of these laws, an evident change in workforce has been witnessed. Nowadays many women have risen to high ranks at workplaces. Organizations nowadays are more supportive of disenfranchised individuals and programs are developed to assist them to reach their full potential. In many organizations, offices of equal employment opportunity have been launched to cater to cater for this function. In these offices the director is charged with the duty of monitoring progress in the organization towards attaining representative workforce and compiling reports on the subject as well as making recommendations on suitable actions to making certain that equal employment opportunity goals are arrived at. These offices also handle complaints filed by marginalized individual in the organization and conduct investigations into the matter. Over and above that, the office makes action to correct the issue while protecting the victim from retaliation.

The disabled people are additionally protected by the uniformed services employment and Reemployment Right Act (USERRA) and the Vietnam Era Veterans readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. In these laws, it becomes a legal requirement to take affirmative action in employing special disabled or ex military service person within an organization. It becomes a duty for individuals to assist disabled people to secure employment or progress career wise. The USERRA is very particular to protecting former employees of the armed forces from retaliation against his former employment. Generally, these Acts ascertain that right reemployment, promotion, transfer, retention in employment among other employment rights and benefits are respected within organization.

Ethical perspective of Affirmative action and equal employment

Organizations are required to depict socially acceptable behaviour in all its operations i.e. business transactions, social responsibility, diplomacy functions among other responsibilities. These activities in the organizations (whether business entities not for profit organizations, government agencies or institutions) must ensure that the society does not get harmed in the process and that the society benefits form its existence. In this case a look at organizations responsibility as an employer would be fitting. There has been a natural fit between the idea of exercising social responsibility and ethical behaviour through availing equal opportunity to employment within organizations.

This entails the aspect of representative workforce within organizations by slotting in the specific groups who the society considers marginalized or non dominant. In typical situations these groups have comprised of women disabled and the aged. Affirmative action within these organizations is utilized to ensure that the imbalance of representation of the population is the society is corrected. This is an ethical practice that organizations feel obliged to carry out and by law they are bound to do so. It is utterly disgraceful for organizations to turn down individuals who are equally qualified or more qualified than others simply because the employer does not identify with their race religion sex disability or age group.

Organizations have an ethical obligation to be equal opportunity employers by selecting the best candidate for the job regardless of their political religious or racial affiliation. Social activities have long been pushing for laws to ensure representation public administration and workforce by protesting against various forms of discriminations and by sensitizing individuals of the ills of these discriminations as well as channels of reporting employers who are in the habit of discrimination on baseless grounds. (Lockton, 2005 ,Ullmann, 2003) This mean that from the ethical responsibility point of view the legitimacy of rejection from a job vacancy should be explicit and clearly by the potential employer for instance because of inadequate skills academic papers or experience.

When we talk of legitimacy we refer to the extent to which an employer has a justifiable right to reason to be making its stance regarding selection of one candidate over the other. The equal employment opportunity laws are clear on the requirements of ensuring that they are adhered to by organizations. (Gulick, Anderson & Bancroft-Whitney Company, 2001).Therefore the challenge of employers is to make certain that they implement these laws in their recruitment policy while at they same time get the right persons for the job without being misconstrued as being discriminatory.

In some action and equal employment opportunity on one hand affirmative action is aimed at discriminatingly choosing to give more chances to a non-dominant group in order to redress inequality in the workforce. On the other hand, equal employment opportunities dictate that employers exercise fair recruitment regardless of sex race nationality or disability of a person. As long as a person can get the job done, then he/she should be accorded the chance to do so. It then leaves employers to wonder whether their efforts to incorporate a representative population in its workforce are in tandem with affirmative action or equal employment laws. This has been a big problem facing employers even to date. The challenge of managers or employers is thus to analyze the equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws interpret them in a way that stakeholders find acceptable.

The basic controversies surrounding unethical practices as provided by the Affirmative action policies is that it factors in race gender or other superficial traits into the decision making process and undercut the non dominant group’s capabilities and triumphs. At the same time it perpetrates another wrong to correct on wrong it does not add up still preference for affirmative action continues as lobby groups and human rights activities gain more popularity among society. Unethical employments practices and discrimination in particular is mostly characterized by employers making decision that make out that their actions are parallel to what is right and ethical yet it is not true.

For instance employers may require that individuals be of good repute and have flair in a certain language say English before applying for a job. If these conditions are set in an environment where natives are many but the required language is not native then it is a form of discriminations very few if any of these people will qualify for the position, hence that practice becomes unethical by virtue of not ensuring equal employment opportunities for a representative workforce. However employers may justify their claim by saying that the job description requires such high standards for it to be organization that hinders representative population in the workforce is the practice of seeking legal permits to work from individuals from other nationalist or enforcing stringent formalities that ensure that people from non dominant are kept out of the workforce.

Recommendations

In order to ensure that representative workforce continues to grow in popularity and indeed to witness the impacts there are certain things that need to be upheld or improved or incorporated in the private organizations and federal agencies.

For instance:

• Creation of programs and strategies that deliberately increase representation of the non dominant groups in the workforce. These strategies should be constantly monitored and modified where necessary and in a systematic manner
• Provision of complete clear-cut about goals of representative workforce policies to the public and especially the employers so that commitment on their part to achieving full representation is fostered. (Lockton, 2005)
• The policies should ensure that high achievers from among the minority groups get to the top rank in civil services sectors and also private sector in order to provide investors and leadership of senior ranks who champion the fight for a workforce that is representative of the diversity of the people. Ultimately the people from non dominant groups will be motivated to join the workforce hence achieving the goal of full representation in the workforce.
• Identifying and removing barriers that weaken the spirit of representative workforce by probably reserving greater proportion of job vacancies for the severely underrepresented individuals. Art the same breath encourage merit-based promotion, recruitment, education access among other aspects of employment.
• Employ reliable systems that enable human resources departments to monitor the individual’s recruits in firms so that affirmative action prevails in recruitment processes. A close eye on the progress of representative recruitment does not occur and this needs to be checked.
• Notably under representation among minority groups varies such that women may be many within the workforce but black women may be few. In such cases of discrepancy programs should be tailor-made in ways that are commensurate to the degree of under representation in the workforce. (Sadler, 1996).

Conclusion

A representative public administration and workforce is crucial in a democratic society. The US has lead to bid to ensuring that this representative aspect of population in organizations and government agencies is affected as seen in the various laws that prohibit discrimination in employment and education opportunities. Equal access and fair treatment to all is the rational behind, equal employment opportunity laws and affirmative action is just a mean to achieving that end. Indeed these laws have played a large part to the visible result of an all encompassing force in learning institutions, police force, military, federal agencies and workforce in general. However, in other sectors the goals of equal employment opportunity laws have not quite been achieved especially in the area of women and African American representation for example in political arena. Therefore, in order to assure that the goals are sufficiently met, then public administrators will have to continue complying with the equal employment opportunity laws and regulations with greater commitment. In addition, employees, mangers, directors and other stakeholders should be reminded that it is their civic duty to ensure that equal employment opportunities for all especially the disenfranchised groups are provided. Nevertheless, by and large the effect of equal employment opportunity laws and affirmative action has been commendable in facilitating creation of a representative workforce.

References

Evan, M. G. (2001). An Introduction to the Law of Employment Discrimination Cornell University Press.

Ford, K. E., Notestine, K.E. & Hill, R (2000) Fundamentals of Employment Law. American Bar Association.

Guerin, L. & DelPo, A. (2006). The Essential Guide to Federal Employment Laws. Nolo publishers.

Gulick, G. S., Anderson, W. S. & Bancroft-Whitney Company. (2001) American jurisprudence. Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company.

Lockton, D. J. (2005) Employment Law. Routledge Cavendish.

Rabin, J.W., Hildreth, B. & Miller, G. J. (1998) Handbook of Public Administration. Marcel Dekker.

Rosenbloom, D. H & O’Leary, R (1997). Public Administration and Law. CRC Press.

Sadler, A. E. (1996). Affirmative Action. Greenhave Press.

Ullmann, V. (2003) Labor and Employment Law. Thomson Delmar Learning.

Vigoda-Gadot, E & Eran, V (2002). Public Administration: An Interdisciplinary Critical Analysis. CRC Press.