Case Study:
Plastecs Discriminationn, Employee Turnover and Retention

Abstract
This is a case study that looks at a fictional company’s need to address employee turnover and retention. It explains possible routes Paul, the company’s Director of Human Resources, could take based on information found in our text which is referenced in the case study as well. It highlights terms we have covered in the past 3 weeks and answers questions presented in the explanation of what the case study should present.

After analyzing and researching Plastecs company policies and talking to management one of the first approaches Paul should make as Director of Human Resources is to reevaluate some employee laws and regulations. The first of which should be Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 which “Prohibits discrimination in employment on basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Mathis, 2011,2009). Roy and John both stated discriminatory reasons for not hiring Asians, which if ever were to be addressed legally could very well implicate the company. They also said that one of the reasons why they no longer considered women for managerial positions is because they felt as though they didn’t want that position. They’re not comfortable in the role”. Which could also fall under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 that states “Prohibition against women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; requires that they be treated as all other employees for employment-related purposes, including benefits”. Paul must quickly remind and teach the importance of knowing and implementing these laws to the owner of Plastecs before legal action is taken against the company. As well as insure that the statistics presented to him his current HR report no longer proves a case against them. This leads me to the external disparate impact metrics using an