Knowledge of Federal EEO Law Among County Administrators and Department Heads
| Author | J. Edward Kellough,Christine L. Rush |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15616168 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2015
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2017, Vol. 37(1) 59 –83
Knowledge of Federal
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
EEO Law Among County
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X15616168
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
Administrators and
Department Heads:
Examining the Extent
and Determinants of
Understanding
Christine L. Rush1 and J. Edward Kellough2
Abstract
This article reports the results of a survey designed to assess the extent to which
public administrators are knowledgeable of federal Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) law. Findings suggest that there is significant variation among county
administrators and department heads in their levels of knowledge, and that they are
more familiar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 than they are with other
laws examined. Those who have had employment law training, who hold a Master of
Public Administration (MPA) degree, and who serve as human resources directors
are more knowledgeable than others. Female administrators are more knowledgeable
in some aspects of the law than their male counterparts.
Keywords
equal employment opportunity, discrimination, diversity, legal issues, and training
After decades of struggle to ensure employment equity in the public sector, we may
assume that public managers clearly understand prohibitions on employment discrimi-
nation. Whether this assumption is accurate, however, remains an open empirical
1Mississippi State University, MS, USA
2University of Georgia, Athens, USA
Corresponding Author:
Christine L. Rush, Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Mississippi State University,
197 Bowen Hall, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
Email: crush@pspa.msstate.edu
60
Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(1)
question.1 Efforts to improve race relations and curb instances of discrimination have
been undertaken, and much progress has been made over the years, but there is still
room for improvement.2 It is useful, therefore, to gauge public managers’ understand-
ing of employment discrimination law and to clarify those factors that might help
improve understanding. This is the purpose of the research reported in this article.
Our inquiry is grounded on an assumption that a general understanding of and
adherence to the law is an essential element of professional competence for public
managers, and that knowledge of the law in the area of Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) policy is particularly important. The public administration literature argues that
legal knowledge in general, and knowledge of EEO law in particular, provides a foun-
dation for public managers to protect public values, enhance public workforce diver-
sity, and insulate public organizations from liability. Our position regarding the
importance of public managers’ legal knowledge builds upon the relevance of knowl-
edge of EEO law to these three areas: public values, public workforce diversity, and
public organizational liability.
The law announces public values that managers are then required to observe and
defend. Bowman, West, and Beck (2010) argue that the law establishes “basic values
or principles” that public administrators must follow and mandates how administrators
“conduct their job[s]” (p. 43). Moe and Gilmour (1995) offer a more expansive view
of the relevance of law for public managers and mark public law as the “foundation”
of public administration (p. 136). They maintain that the loss of a public law tradition
in public administrative theory has inhibited public managers’ ability to link theory
and practice and has left the field susceptible to a loss of legitimacy (Moe & Gilmour,
1995). David Rosenbloom (2013) underscores the integration of managerial, political,
and legal values in contemporary public administrative practice. In addition, public
managers hold an important position in ensuring that public law values extend to pub-
lic services that are provided by private or non-profit organizations (Rush & Zingale,
2015). Given these examples of the law’s central role in establishing and maintaining
public values, it should not be surprising that the public administration literature also
calls for training in the law to be a key part of a public administrators’ professional
education (Rosenbloom, 1984).
One value reflected in the law is workforce diversity. Knowledge of EEO law pro-
vides public managers with a justification for public workforce diversity both through
direct proscriptions against employment discrimination and through a framework for
inclusion. Federal EEO statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967
(29 U.S.C. 621, et seq.), and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (42
U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.) protect applicants and employees from racial, ethnic, sexual,
age, and disability discrimination. In doing so, these statutes guide many of the deci-
sions made by public managers with authority over hiring, promotions, work assign-
ments, and employee discipline (Battaglio, 2015). A failure to know and follow EEO
law could damage efforts to augment diversity in the public workforce and, in turn,
could make government less responsive to the interests of diverse constituencies
(Chambers & Riccucci, 1997; McKay & Davis, 2008; Meier, 1993; Nishishiba, 2012;
Rush and Kellough
61
Rangarajan & Black, 2007; Riccucci, 2002; Riccucci & Saldivar, 2014; Rice, 2007;
Selden, 1997; Soni, 2000).
In addition, public administrators who are unfamiliar with requirements of EEO law
may place themselves and their organizations at risk for statutory civil rights violations
and significant penalties (Gutman, 2000).3 French (2009) stresses the value of EEO
knowledge in avoiding liability when he states, “Numerous aspects of the day-to-day
operations of local governments are subject to legal scrutiny; public managers and offi-
cials must be keenly aware of the legal rights and protections that extend to both citi-
zens and employees of local governments” (p. 92). Furthermore, previous work has
acknowledged that local government administrators see Title VII employee protections
as significant concerns (MacManus, 2003, p. 179), but it is unclear how well these
administrators actually know this statute and other laws prohibiting discrimination.
Our objective is to begin the process of finding an answer to that question. In doing
so, we study public administrators in county government. We find this focus valuable,
in part, because of the rise in county government responsibilities and visibility in
recent years and the fact that there is a need for further analysis of administration at the
county level. In the mid-1990s, Svara (1996, p. 109) observed that there is a “tremen-
dous imbalance” between our knowledge of leadership and professionalism in cities
and our understanding of those concepts in counties (see also Benton, 2005; Menzel
et al., 1992). More recently, Benton and colleagues noted an enduring shortage of
research on county government and a need for further examination of county adminis-
tration (Benton et al., 2007).
This article first addresses briefly the importance of EEO law to the practice of
public administration. Next, we introduce a survey designed to measure the under-
standing of EEO law by county administrators and department heads in the state of
Georgia, a state where this analysis may be particularly interesting since political lead-
ership in the state stood firmly in opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s.4
We review our findings regarding the understanding of EEO law by Georgia county
administrators and department heads and develop a model to examine determinants of
that understanding. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our study and
possible directions for further research.
EEO Law and Public Administration
In many respects, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the foundation of federal
EEO law. This is the first statute we examine. Title VII prohibits employment practices
that discriminate on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” By
judicial interpretation, not only is overt and intentional discrimination (i.e., disparate
treatment) prohibited, but the law may also proscribe acts that appear on their face to
be neutral, and are even neutral in intent, but that nevertheless operate to disadvantage
people distinguished on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or sex (i.e., disparate
impact). Employment decisions that are facially neutral or neutral in intent may still
adversely affect groups of people defined in terms of characteristics such as race or
sex. Decisions of this nature are permitted only when an employer can show that they
62
Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(1)
serve a business necessity, and the courts impose a high standard of evidence to meet
such an exception. For example, examinations for employment selection that dispro-
portionately exclude women or members of racial or ethnic minority groups will be in
violation of the law unless it can be demonstrated that they are, in fact, valid selection
tools that identify qualified job candidates. Riccucci and Saldivar consider the impact
of such employment examinations in their 2014 analysis of local...
To continue reading
Request your trial