The Legal Environment of Human Resources Management 73
advancement of qualifi ed disabled persons and veterans, and qualifi ed
veterans of the Vietnam era.
Affi rmative action has often been interpreted and criticized as requir-
ing the implementation of quotas regardless of individuals ’ qualifi cations
and ability to perform a job. In reality, affi rmative action may refer to
several strategies, including active recruitment of groups underrepre-
sented in an organization, eliminating irrelevant employment practices
that bar protected groups from employment, and, the most controversial
one, granting preferential status to protected groups. The effectiveness of
affirmative action is represented by the extent to which employers
make an effort through their SHRM practices to attract, retain, and
upgrade members of protected classes as a condition of doing business
with the government.
Critics of affi rmative action claim it results in reverse discrimination
and that the costs of complying with its guidelines are too expensive.
Claims of reverse discrimination suggest that special advantages or prefer-
ential treatment given to women and minorities promote unfair treatment
against white males and are thus still discrimination. A second argument
against affi rmative action is that the costs associated with complying with
the regulations are high and that compliance results in lower productivity
because of a less-qualifi ed workforce. However, there is little evidence to
validate these arguments (Kellough, 2006; Pincus, 2003).
Although the executive orders, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and
the Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Act apply only to the recipients of
federal funds, many organizations have decided to implement voluntary
affi rmative action programs to redress previous discriminatory employ-
ment practices or to make their workforce more representative of the
constituents or clients they serve.
Constitutional Rights
Public employees have a broad array of constitutional protections that
differentiate public employment from employment in the nonprofi t and
for - profi t sectors. Public sector employees ’ rights and privileges to work are
to some extent protected by a broad umbrella of laws that either prohibit a
government activity or create an individual right. Many of the constitutional
protections afforded to public sector employees were originally enacted
to protect free citizens from arbitrary government action in the areas of
privacy, expression, association, contracts, and property. Since public sector
