Talk:Equal employment opportunity

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Any questions?

feel free to ask. Thetruthbelow^(talk) 04:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an American, although I do not often get into the details of specific legislation, bills, laws, etc. Sometimes, the language can be a bit dense. The second sentence begins "The law was the first federal law designed. . ." The subject of the previous sentence, however is the EEOC. I am fairly certain that "The law" referred to by the second sentence is the Civil Rights Act. I think this should be clarified, however, for two reasons.

First, when a sentence's subject is indeterminate (e.g. "The law), if there are no other context clues, I think it is more natural to assume that it is referring to the subject of the preceding sentence rather than the object of that sentence, but "the Civil Rights Act" is the object of the first sentence. The EEOC is the subject. Second, for folks like me, when something is called an Act, I am relatively confident that can also be called a "law," but I am not 100% confident. The first sentence also made it clear that the EEOC was established in the Civil Rights Act, so could the EEOC be called a "law." I don't think so, but. . .

In short, I recommend changing "the law" in the second sentence to "The Civil Rights Act," or at least to "the act." I didn't want to change it myself because I am not 100% confident that my assumption is correct. Bt1159 (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

There should be more written on what EEO is. --199.200.252.17 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unduly U.S. -centric. 142.169.16.62 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EOE M/F/V/E

i see a lot of signs that say EOE M/F/V/E some ive seem M/F/V and ive never seen EOE alone... is the M/F/V/E related and what does it mean does anyone have an answer if so does it fit under here.Shimonnyman 08:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen the shorthand "EOE M/F/V/E", though I've worked in U.S. Federal government EEO for some years. I Googled it and I see that it is used in the private sector and by some U.S. state and municipal governments. The term I found was "EOE M/F/V/D", which stands for "Equal Opportunity Employer - Male/Female/Veterans/Disabled". I don't know what the "E" you cited might stand for (ethnicity?) and I don't know why these categories are specified, and not race, national origin or religion. Eastcote (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EEO vs EOE

Why does "Equal Employment Opportunity" (EEO) redirect to Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) when the usual language, at least in the USA, tends to be EEO and not EOE? As in EEOC. Shouldn't the article title be "Equal Employment Opportunity"? Eastcote (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title of this page should be "Equal Employment Opportunity". Does anyone know how to change a page title, or request that a page title be changed? User:Timothy Cooper 2010-01-14T21:21:39

I also agree that this should be renamed to "Equal Employment Opportunity", however this article is about EEO in the US. I considered tagging it with {{worldwide}}, however maybe this page should be moved to a US specific page title, or merged into at-will employment as suggested below. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contraception coverage

I noticed that there was a controversy about discrimination charges launched against Belmont Abbey College for not providing employees with contraception coverage. The educational institution views the matter in terms of freedom of religion and feels that its first amendment rights are being violated. [1] ADM (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with at-will employment

I think this stub article should be merged as a section of the much larger at-will employment article, since EOE policies really are, more less, an exception to at-will employment.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Employment Opportunity → Equal opportunity employment –

Upper case wrong: Could an admin please move this article to "Equal employment opportunity", since the term is generic. It should not be capitalised just because in some places its common abbreviation is used (see wp:mos). Tony (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Title Case is Much Overrated, and inappropriate in this case. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POSI 3318: Article Evaluation

My suggestions for improvement are the following: creating a clear overview at the beginning explaining the importance for equality in the workplace. Generating a clear structure of points will help with the flow of information. [The overview, protected categories, and acts/cases that provided that protection] Giving each point its own section and more background will help balance the information rather than having many links. It helps the reader obtain a quick understanding in one place than clicking and being directed to other places. Since this article is very short, it does having a neutral coverage. Overall, elaborating on each main point and correcting little items such as capitalizing the title will make this article stronger and credible.

Nkh2 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence does not seem to mean anything: "The Title is pertinent in companies affecting commerce that have twenty-five or more employees." Can anyone clarify? Is "pertinent" a legal term here (if so, it should not be used), or is this just saying that the law only restricts the behaviors of these firms (if so, that should be stated instead)? What kind of company does not affect commerce?Rscragun (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 04 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equal opportunity employment → Equal Employment Opportunity – "Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)" is the most common term for this concept, and not "Equal opportunity employment (EOE)". It is reflected as "EEO" in governmental organization names and in laws, such as in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The article itself begins with 'The "EEO"', and not "EOE", and nowhere does the article refer to "EOE", while it does refer to "EEO". I tried to rename this myself, but at some point it has been redirected from an existing page for "Equal Employment Opportunity" so I was not able to rename it. I consider this uncontroversial because edits are few and far between on this page. – Eastcote (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastcote and Philg88: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:TITLEFORMAT it should be "Equal employment opportunity" as it's not a proper noun. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:TITLEFORMAT. InsertClever Phrase Here 11:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Equal employment opportunity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124120813/http://www.llsdc.org:80/eeo/ to http://www.llsdc.org/eeo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]