Addressing Workplace Discrimination: A Comprehensive Analysis and Redesign of Hiring Practices at Eugene’s Western Wear Outlet Store


Discrimination in the workplace is a serious issue that affects individuals from various backgrounds and protected categories. One such case that raises concerns about discriminatory practices is that of Steve, a job seeker who may have experienced unfair treatment while applying to Eugene’s Western Wear Outlet Store. In this essay, we will identify the potential discrimination categories or prohibited practices under which Steve might reasonably file a discrimination claim. Furthermore, we will offer a revised version of the want ad that aligns with anti-discrimination laws and promotes inclusivity, diversity, and fairness. To support our analysis, we will draw from a range of scholarly and credible sources, ensuring the most up-to-date information is presented.

Identifying Discrimination Categories and Prohibited Practices

Discrimination in the workplace can manifest in various forms, affecting individuals from different backgrounds and protected categories. In Steve’s case, potential discrimination categories and prohibited practices must be carefully examined to ascertain whether he has valid grounds for filing a discrimination claim. This section will delve deeper into each discrimination category and the relevant anti-discrimination laws, shedding light on Steve’s potential claims.

Age Discrimination

Age discrimination is a pertinent issue, especially for older job seekers like Steve. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) safeguards individuals aged 40 or older from experiencing discrimination in various aspects of employment, including hiring, promotions, layoffs, and benefits (EEOC, 2019). If Steve is above the age of 40 and perceives that his application was rejected solely due to his age, he may have valid grounds to file an age discrimination claim against Eugene’s Western Wear Outlet Store.

In the case of “Smith v. City of Jackson”, the Supreme Court emphasized that age-based decisions need not be the sole cause of adverse employment actions; they need only be a factor in the decision-making process to be considered discriminatory. Therefore, Steve’s claim would be viable if he can demonstrate that age played a role, even if it was not the sole factor, in the hiring decision.

Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination continues to be a persistent problem in workplaces, particularly in industries like retail. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex, which includes gender identity (EEOC, 2021). If Steve identifies as a man and believes that his gender was a contributing factor in the rejection of his application, he may pursue a gender discrimination claim against the outlet store.

To support his claim, Steve must provide evidence of differential treatment based on his gender during the hiring process. For instance, if it can be shown that female applicants with similar qualifications were given preferential treatment, his case would be bolstered (Westlaw, 2019). Additionally, any explicit statements or comments made by the hiring personnel that suggest gender bias could be crucial evidence in establishing the claim.

Racial Discrimination

Racial discrimination is a grave concern in modern workplaces, and Steve may have a valid claim if he belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group and believes his race was a factor in the employment decision. Title VII strictly prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on their race or ethnicity (EEOC, 2021).

In the landmark case of “Griggs v. Duke Power Co.”, the Supreme Court held that practices that disproportionately affect members of a particular race or ethnicity, even if unintentional, can still be considered discriminatory. Therefore, if Steve can demonstrate that Eugene’s Western Wear Outlet Store’s hiring process had a disparate impact on racial minorities, he may have a compelling case for racial discrimination.

Disability Discrimination

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides protection to qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination in employment. If Steve has a disability and believes that the employer rejected his application based on his disability, he could potentially file a disability discrimination claim (EEOC, 2021).

It is essential to note that employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities to enable them to perform essential job functions. Failure to offer such accommodations, unless they cause undue hardship, may be considered discriminatory (Westlaw, 2018). Thus, if Steve can demonstrate that he was qualified for the position and that the employer did not make reasonable accommodations, his claim may have merit.

National Origin Discrimination

National origin discrimination occurs when an individual’s ethnicity, birthplace, accent, or appearance is the basis for differential treatment in employment decisions. Title VII explicitly prohibits such discrimination (EEOC, 2021).

In Steve’s case, if he identifies with a specific national origin or ethnicity and believes that it played a role in his application’s rejection, he might file a national origin discrimination claim. To support this claim, Steve would need to provide evidence of discriminatory remarks, disparate treatment, or hiring practices that favored individuals from a particular national origin over others (Westlaw, 2020).

In conclusion, identifying potential discrimination categories and prohibited practices is essential to understanding the validity of Steve’s discrimination claim. Age, gender, race, disability, and national origin are some of the protected categories under anti-discrimination laws that Steve might base his claim on. By delving into the nuances of each category and citing relevant case law and statutes, it becomes evident that comprehensive legal protection is available to safeguard the rights of employees like Steve. To ensure workplaces become more equitable and inclusive, it is imperative for employers to be aware of these discriminatory practices and take proactive measures to prevent their occurrence.

Revising the Want Ad

Original Want Ad

“Eugene’s Western Wear Outlet Store is seeking a young, energetic sales associate to join our team. We want someone with a fresh approach to sales and a keen eye for fashion. Requirements include a minimum of 2 years of sales experience, a love for Western wear, and the ability to lift heavy boxes. Apply in person with your resume.”

Revised Want Ad

“Eugene’s Western Wear Outlet Store is seeking a sales associate to join our diverse team. We welcome applications from individuals of all ages, genders, races, ethnicities, abilities, and national origins. Our ideal candidate should have a passion for Western wear, a customer-oriented mindset, and the ability to lift moderately heavy objects. Prior sales experience is preferred, but we value enthusiasm and a willingness to learn. To apply, please submit your resume online or in person.”


Addressing discrimination in the workplace is essential to foster a fair and inclusive environment for all job seekers and employees. In Steve’s case, it is crucial to analyze the potential discrimination categories that could be relevant to his situation. By revising the want ad to align with anti-discrimination laws and promoting diversity, Eugene’s Western Wear Outlet Store can ensure a more inclusive hiring process. To ensure accuracy and credibility, this essay relied on a range of scholarly and credible sources, offering valuable insights into the legal framework surrounding workplace discrimination.


U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2019). Age Discrimination.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2021). Types of Discrimination.

Westlaw. (2019). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Westlaw. (2018). Americans with Disabilities Act.

Westlaw. (2020). National Origin Discrimination.