144 ANALYSING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Attempts by personnel managers to ensure that recruitment practices were formal,
consistent, and lawful were frequently undermined by divisions and conflicts based on
function (between personnel and line): space (corporate/local); hierarchy (senior line
manager/subordinate personnel); age; gender; and managerial ideology.
In fact, this study found that junior personnel managers reported that they
would be labelled as troublemakers and their careers could be negatively
affected if they strongly advocated for employee rights at the expense of man-
agerial prerogative (Collinson and Collinson 1996). As we will see from the
USA, this is exactly what has occurred in a number of reported cases.
The US context and cases
The USA has numerous federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination
in employment (e.g. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, etc.). Employers are expected to maintain their own internal compliance
mechanisms (Mello 2000), but where employees believe that they have been
discriminated against it is expected that they will raise their concern with
the appropriate person in their own organization and follow the grievance
procedures stipulated in their employer’s policies. There is also the option for
employee grievances to be taken to an external body such as the US Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Whistle-blowers are purportedly protected from reprisal, retaliation, or
victimization by their employers. For example, Title VII prohibits two forms
of retaliation. The first is known as ‘opposition retaliation’ which occurs as
a result of an employee opposing an unlawful practice by conveying their
concern or objection to the employer and explicitly stating that the behaviour
or practice constitutes a form of employment discrimination that is unlawful.
In theory, adverse reactions by the employers (such as a reassignment of
duties, insufficient resources to perform the job properly, demotion, firing)
that can be connected causally to opposition behaviour by the employee are
prohibited.
The second type of retaliation may arise when an employee participates in a
discrimination matter by ‘making a charge, testifying, assisting, or participat-
ing in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing’ (Weatherspoon
2000) and is known as ‘participation retaliation’. The penalty (compensatory
and punitive damages) for retaliation, depending on the size of the employing
organization, can be up to $300,000 (Ray 1997), although state law may allow
for higher penalties. For example, inWoodsonv.Scott Paper Co.the pay-out
amounted to $1,557,845 (Ray 1997). Thus it might be expected that this type