Tanglewood

Running Head: TANGLEWOOD CASE STUDIES 5 AND 6

Tanglewood Case Studies 5 and 6

Tanglewood Case Study 5

1) Flow Statistic

Store Associates .24| .23| 1.04

Shift Leader .14| .16| 1.14

Department Manager .07| .08| 1.14

Store Manager 0.22| 08.08| 0.36

Store Associates .24| .23| .96

Shift Leader .28| .32| 1.14

Department Manager .02| .21| 10.50

Store Manager 11.27| 28.14| 255.52

Store Associates .24| .23| .96

Shift Leader .06| .16| 2.67

Department Manager .07| .08| 1.14

Store Manager 0.0| 08.08| 0

Store Associates .24| .23| .96

Shift Leader .14| .32| 2.29

Department Manager .14| .21| 1.50

Store Manage 25| 28.14| 112.0

Concentration Data

Store Associates 16%| 84%| 3%

Shift Leader 16%| 84%| 2%

Department Manager 13%| 87%| 2%

Asst. Store Manager 7%| 93%| 3%

Store Manager 30%| 70%| 0%

Total employees ratio 16%| 84%| 3%

Based on the results of the flow statistics and concentration data the proportions show a possible disparate impact problem. The concentration data seems low for the African American group compared to the applicant population; however, it only showed deficiencies in higher positions of the company. This proportion problem could be due to the availability of qualified applicants for either external or internal hire.

2) In disparate impact cases the defendant needs to prove that its practices are not discriminatory. The burden of proof lies with the defendant. The company must define job relation for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. The plaintiff must show adverse impact for each specific staffing practice separately.

3) Tanglewood currently has a strong emphasis on hiring from within and through recommendations from their employees. Their philosophy is to hire people with the skills for the position and that fit the culture of the company. Changes to recruiting procedures to achieve better outcomes in the future should be implemented. It is unlawful to fail or refuse to hire or...