Eeoc Vs Sears

Society has attributed personality characteristics to an individual’s identity but this should not be accounted for in court cases because discrimination is often overlooked when a discussion of characteristics arises as seen in the case of EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1986). In EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears made a convincing argument about men and women’s fundamentally different employments interests and values. This led EEOC to lose its case, which argued women were being discriminated against due to the lack of women working in commission sales. Women were attributed characteristics of not being interested in working at night, not being competitive, and not willing to take risks. These attributes would lead the district court to

Sears, Roebuck & Co was a case brought before a district court, in 1979, in which EEOC claimed Sears discriminated against women on two levels. Women were not being hired on the same basis as males and they were also not being promoted to commission sales on the same basis. EEOC to prove its case used statistical data to show that there were a disproportionate number of women in commission sale roles. This was problematic since EEOC solely relied on this statistical data; they were unable to get women to testify that they have been discriminated against. Women did not testify in court because they were afraid of going against a powerful company such as Sears. Sears used testimony from managers who testified that they tried to get women to enter commission sales but they refused to. Sears also brought scholars to the stand who testified that the reason women weren’t entering commission sales was because of their identity and they had different values and interests. This argument made by Sears was successful in convincing the district court judge that there was no discrimination faced by women at Sears. In this article, it is clear that personality characteristics are attributed to an individual’s identity. According to the testimony of scholars brought by Sears, women were believed to have different personality characteristics than men. These scholars testified these differences prevented women from taking jobs in commission sales. Women were interested in

Women, following this ruling, would continue to be placed in lower jobs than men on the basis that they were not interested in it and had different values than men. This argument was accepted without any disagreement, continuing the long held stereotypes of women. Stereotypes of women were used as a justification for not allowing women to be placed in jobs that are normally dominated by men. These personal characteristics also seemed to be expected for all women. All women were perceived to fall under the umbrella of not wanting to take jobs that involved competitiveness, risky salary, and deterred from the normal working hours. Using these characteristics as universal can create many problems in court cases. Universal characteristics cannot be applied to every person with that identity. It is possible that not all women feel the way those few women did in Crespi’s representation. In conclusion, social constructs have allowed some personal characteristics to be fundamentally attributed to ones identity. As seen in the case of EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co, women were given personal characteristics of being uncompetitive, needing personal connections, and less risky. These characteristics