IndexIntroductionDiversity and CultureNevada Community College and University System vs. FarmerOutsourcing Actions Taken by Watchmark-ComnitelWhy it is Easier to Comply with Diversity Standards in Canada than in the United StatesResponses to Topics Presented in Sections 4 and 5ConclusionIntroductionWe live in a world where diversity plays a huge role in people's lives. Diversity has become enormous as we progress in this world we call “life”. It has become more complex since this country was “founded” and continues to increase as we progress. Nowadays, employers need to consider hiring all types of people, such as women, ethnic and cultural minorities, and hiring people from different religious backgrounds. Diversity is more complicated in the United States than anywhere else, due to the amount of diversity in our country and how many people want to live in the United States. The United States is seen by other countries as a country that puts a lot of effort into developing fair laws affecting people's employment. . This, however, makes it extremely important that as a nation we continue to maintain our ever-evolving conditions of diversity in the workplace as they are enormous. This article I conducted not only discusses the cases of diversity in the workplace but also the general problem for people around the world. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Diversity and Culture University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer 1989 AND 1991, when only 1% of the faculty at the University of Nevada were African American, while approximately 89% of the faculty was Caucasian. In an effort to reduce the racial imbalance among faculty members, the University created the “minority bonus policy,” an amendment to its existing affirmative action program. This amendment essentially gave departments permission to hire additional faculty following the primary employment of a minority candidate. The University became aware of a vacancy in the sociology department, this occurred in 1990. The advertisement for applicants to fill the position indicated the need for experience in teaching social psychology courses and stated a salary range between $28,000.00 and $34,000.00, depending on the candidate's experience and qualifications. An African American candidate, Johnson Makoba, and a Caucasian candidate, Farmer, were both considered for the position and their qualifications were measured as comparable. However, inevitably Makoba was offered the position, with Farmer being hired the following year. Although the University hired Makoba at a starting salary of $35,000.00, Farmer was offered a starting salary of $31,000.00, despite them being responsible for completing identical tasks. Personally this is wrong, knowing that both candidates were qualified but they were not the same. Farmer filed a complaint against the University of Nevada, alleging that it violated the Equal Pay Act by paying her different wages for the same work than a male employee. (Makoba) who displayed almost identical qualifications in January 1993. She further alleged that the university was liable for a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by paying her less than a man doing the same work. The affirmative action plan conforms to factors at the time aimed at increasing the number of minorities holding positions of authority in major businesses and corporations (University and Community College System of Nevada v.Farmer, 1997). The University's attempts to diversify its faculty by creating or making available positions previously unavailable to minorities have been a good faith effort to advance the cause of affirmative action. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the University's actions did not in any way adversely affect the rights of Caucasians. University Affirmative Action 1992 report revealed that Caucasians still held 87 to 89 percent of all full-time faculty positions within the University. Finally, since African Americans still occupy only about 1 percent of available faculty positions, it is clear that through its minority bonus policy, the University has attempted to achieve a more equitable racial balance. The University's affirmative action plan therefore did not violate any constitutional laws. measures, as would be necessary for the involvement of the US Supreme Court. The University effectively demonstrated that its primary interest was in promoting a culturally and ethnically diverse faculty, so as not to discriminate against a particular candidate (Farmer). The university argued that failure to attract minority faculty would lead to the University's Caucasian majority and limit students' exposure to multicultural diversity (University and Community College System of Nevada v. Farmer, 1997). Through its affirmative action policies, the University was able to achieve greater racial and gender diversity by hiring both Makoba and Farmer. It is also important to note the fact that Farmer's position was a direct result of the minority bonus policy, as was Makoba's. Outsourcing Actions Taken by Watchmark-Comnitel Outsourcing began at Watchmark-Comnitel with moving American positions to foreign companies that were able to complete the work at a lower cost, thus saving the company money. Employees who lost their jobs at the company were offered the option of training their replacements and receiving a severance package or forgoing the severance package by not offering to train their replacements (Cook, 2004). The company reported that most of the laid off employees chose to train their replacements (Cook, 2004). When the company was eventually acquired by IBM, positions opened for new employees both in the United States and abroad. From both a deontological and teleological perspective, there is an argument to be made regarding Watchmark-Comnitel's actions. Although the company offered employees who lost their outsourced jobs a generous severance package in exchange for training their replacements, this was not the deal the company originally made with its U.S. employees. Employees hired to work at the Watchmark-Comnitel company had the expectation of holding positions at the company as long as they met the requirements of their positions (Cook, 2004). Therefore, by outsourcing the positions of employees who were fulfilling their part of the employment agreement, the company may be deemed to be acting in an unethical manner (Harvey & Allard, 2015). While most American employees understand that the company they work for has as its primary goal the ability to make as much profit as possible, there is also an implicit understanding that companies will show loyalty to employees who fulfill their obligations to of the company, and that such employees will not lose their positions simply because cheaper labor becomes available elsewhere. Why it's easier to meet diversity standards in Canada than in the United States.