{"id":13818,"date":"2023-10-05T09:20:42","date_gmt":"2023-10-05T09:20:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/icoca.ch\/?post_type=case_studies&p=13818"},"modified":"2024-01-31T09:23:30","modified_gmt":"2024-01-31T09:23:30","slug":"discrimination-against-private-security-personnel","status":"publish","type":"case_studies","link":"https:\/\/icoca.ch\/es\/case-studies\/discrimination-against-private-security-personnel\/","title":{"rendered":"DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PRIVATE SECURITY PERSONNEL"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background <\/strong><\/h2>\n

AlliedBarton is a large private security company with locations across North America and the United Kingdom, based in Pennsylvania, United States. In 2016, AlliedBarton merged with Universal Services of America, creating a new brand called Allied Universal. As a federal contractor, AlliedBarton is covered by Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from practising discrimination against certain protected classes.<\/p>\n

The Incident <\/strong><\/h2>\n

A routine OFCCP compliance evaluation revealed that AlliedBarton allegedly discriminated against 2,263 female, Black, and American Indian employees over a two-year period at a federal contractor\u2019s New York City location. In particular, the evaluation showed that the company allegedly paid employees identifying as female, Black, and American Indian less than other security guards by assigning them to lower-paying job sites.<\/p>\n

Legal Aspects<\/strong><\/h2>\n

OFCCP determined that AlliedBarton\u00b4s practices violated Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.<\/p>\n

The International Code of Conduct <\/strong><\/h3>\n

The International Code of Conduct<\/a> prohibits Member and Affiliate Companies, in addition to their personnel, from discriminating on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, social origin, social status, indigenous status, disability, or sexual orientation when hiring security personnel (section 42).<\/p>\n

Resources on discrimination<\/a><\/p>\n

Impact\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n

Ultimately, AlliedBarton entered into a conciliation agreement with OFCCP. In the conciliation agreement, AlliedBarton agreed to pay $1,175,000 in back wages and interest reflecting the late payment of these wages to the 2,263 affected employees.<\/p>\n

AlliedBarton also agreed to take corrective action to address the discriminatory compensation and job-site placement policies, conduct training, and monitor compensation and job-site placement. Specifically, AlliedBarton agreed to transition from a \u201ctap on the shoulder\u201d job-site placement to a method informing all security personnel of openings at job sites.<\/p>\n

The company agreed to submit annual reports following compensation analyses for three years.<\/p>\n

Discussion <\/strong><\/h2>\n

How can private security companies ensure that non-explicitly discriminatory policies do not result in discrimination?<\/p>\n

What kinds of formal policies, training and monitoring can private security companies put in place to prevent discriminatory outcomes for employees?<\/p>\n

Sources<\/strong><\/h2>\n