Atlantic Shrimp

  1. How would information about Savannah’s labor market be important in considering whether or not Atlantic Shrimp is in compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Discuss relevant data you find associated with Savannah’s demographics.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was established mainly to protect citizens from discrimination and harassment from all employers and to ensure they have equal work opportunities (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2017). This law categorically prohibits discrimination against workers because of their race, nationality, religion, sex, or origin (HRhero, 2017b). Despite its existence, Atlantic Shrimp has only employed Caucasians in its cleaning crew, and most of its workers are relatively young when compared with the country’s median age of its workforce. Overall, Atlantic Shrimp has racial discrimination on its recruitment process because the United States is a multi-racial society; therefore, the company should reflect the country’s racial diversity by having a cleaning crew with people from different races. Similarly, the relatively young crew of the cleaners shows the company also discriminates based on age because the median age of workers in the United States is relatively higher than that of Atlantic Shrimp.
According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 SEC 2000e-2[Section 703], it is wrong for an employer to discriminate against any individual because of his/her race, color, sex, religion, or nationality (United States Department of Labor, 2017b). The fact that Atlantic Shrimp’s cleaning crew is only composed of Causacians shows that there is a clear case of discrimination in the recruitment process because this team does not represent the racially diverse workforce that is in the United States. If the company’s employment system were inclusive, the cleaning crew would have people from all races.
It is worth noting that the requirement that all individuals should have at least a high school diploma or GED as a condition of employment for its cleaning crew does not amount to discrimination. In the case of Giggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), the judges ruled that the respondent had the right to use academic qualifications when deciding on the employees it would hire (United States Supreme Court, 1971). Since Atlantic Crew uses a similar employment policy, then its requirement that all workers must have attained a high school diploma or GED does not exclude non-Caucasians.
Finally, Atlantic Shrimp’s relatively young crew indicates that it discriminates its employees based on age. It is worth noting the majority of the workforce in the company are people between 23 and 31 ages, which shows that it prefers young employees. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from refusing to hire people who are 40 years or older solely because of their age (HRHero, 2017a). Since the median age of United States is 37.9 years, the company’s average age would ordinarily be about this figure (Central Intelligence Agency, 2017). Atlantic Shrimp Co. has not given any justifiable reason why it prefers young people over those who are older; therefore, it violates the ADEA regulation.

  1. Based on your readings and research, does Atlantic Shrimp need to make policy changes to ensure compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Should there be changes to comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act? If so, what changes should Atlantic Shrimp make, and why are they necessary to comply with each of these important laws?

Atlantic Shrimp should make policy changes to comply with Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In particular, the company should comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and establish there is no racial discrimination in its recruitment process. Atlantic Shrimp is covered by ADEA because it is engaged in a commercial activity and has more than 20 employees in more than 20 calendar weeks in a year (United States Department of Labor, 2017a). The failure to respect ADEA regulation can make Atlantic Shrimp incur heavy losses when paying damages to individuals it has replaced or passed over in favor of younger ones strictly because of age.
Individuals who are 40 years or over can file a case against Atlantic Shrimp on the grounds of age discrimination (HRhero, 2017a). In such a complaint, they would complain of being replaced or passed over because of their age. Normally, the applicant is required to show that he/she was passed over by an employee who was at least 3 years younger than him/her (HRhero, 2017a). Since most of Atlantic Shrimp employees are between 23 and 31 years, a complainant on ADEA grounds can easily prove that he/she was discriminated based on age.
Atlantic Shrimp should also ensure there is no racial discrimination in its recruitment process. The exclusive recruitment of Caucasians in the cleaning crew does not reflect the United States’ multi-racial society. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the current system discriminates against people from other races. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in the hiring, promotion, pay, job training, and other aspects of employment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin (United States Department of Labor, 2017b). Since the United States is a multi-racial society, an inclusive employment system would result in the company’s cleaning crew having people from all races. The discriminatory employment system of the Atlantic Shrimp exposes it to possible lawsuits on the grounds of racial discrimination from various employment applicants.
HRhero. (2017a) Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Retrieved from
HRhero. (2017b). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from,
Central Intelligence Agency. (2017). The World Factbook. Retrieved from
United States Department of Labor. (2017a). Age Discrimination Act of 1975. Retrieved from
United States Department of Labor. (2017b). Ethnic/National origin. Retrieved from
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2017). Prohibited employment policies/practices. Retrieved from
United States Supreme Court. (2017). Griggs v. Duke Power Co., (1971) No.124. Retrieved from