Explore jobs
Find specific jobs
Explore careers
Explore professions
Best companies
Explore companies
It is the daily scene of unfulfilled intentions and faired effort.” In 1968, Propst and Herman Miller introduced the Action Office 2, a single, easy-to-assemble unit with vertical partitions to minimize distraction.
1970 – The Labor Department, under President Richard M. Nixon, issued Order No.4, authorizing flexible goals and timetables to correct "underutilization" of minorities by federal contractors.
1971 – President Nixon issued E.O. 11625, directing federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program.
1973 – President Richard M. Nixon signs the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which requires agencies to submit an affirmative action plan to the EEOC for the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities.
Awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace came on to the scene when the term was first coined in 1974.
Bakke, 438 United States 912 (1978) upheld the use of race as one factor in choosing among qualified applicants for admission.
Weber, 444 United States 889 (1979) that race-conscious affirmative action efforts designed to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in an employer's workforce resulting from past discrimination are permissible if they are temporary and do not violate the rights of white employees.
1983 – President Ronald Reagan issued E.O. 12432, which directed each federal agency with substantial procurement or grant making authority to develop a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) development plan.
In 1984, it became one of the first companies to include sexual orientation as part of its commitment to nondiscrimination.
1985 – Efforts by some in the Reagan administration to repeal Executive Order 11246 were thwarted by defenders of affirmative action, including other Reagan administration officials, members of Congress from both parties, civil rights organizations and corporate leaders.
EEOC, 478 United States 421 (1986) upheld a judicially-ordered 29% minority "membership admission goal" for a union that had intentionally discriminated against minorities, confirming that courts may order race- conscious relief to correct and prevent future discrimination.
Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, 480 United States 616 (1987) that a severe under representation of women and minorities justified the use of race or sex as "one factor" in choosing among qualified candidates.
The court also analyzed the constitutionality of the program in use when Adarand first filed suit in 1989 and determined that the previous program was unconstitutional.
1989 – By 1989, the composition of the Supreme Court had changed and now included a strong majority of justices who were suspicious, if not downright hostile, to affirmative action.
1994 – In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v.
Pena, 513 United States 1012 (1994) the Supreme Court held that a federal affirmative action program remains constitutional when narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling government interest such as remedying discrimination.
1995 – President Bill Clinton reviewed all affirmative action guidelines by federal agencies and declared his support for affirmative action programs by announcing the Administration's policy of "Mend it, don't end it."
In 1995, IBM President Louis Gerstner established eight diversity task forces, based on the following cultural groups: African Americans; Asians; people with disabilities; Hispanics; men; Native Americans; people self-identifying as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT); and women.
They saw some success on the state level, as California enacted Proposition 209 in 1996, which prohibits all affirmative action programs in employment, education, and contracting.
1997 – Proposition 209 enacted in California which banned all forms of affirmation action “in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
1998 – Ban on use of affirmative action in admissions at the University of California went into effect.
In 1998, Exxon and Mobil signed a US $73.7 billion merger – the largest corporate merger ever up to that point.
Mineta, 534 United States 103 (2001) the Supreme Court dismissed the case as “improvidently granted”, thereby leaving undisturbed the 10th Circuit’s decision, which upheld the government’s revised federal contracting program.
2001 – California enacted a new plan allowing the top 12.5% of high school student’s admission to the UC system, either for all four years or after two years outside the system, and guaranteeing the top 4% of all high school seniors’ admission into the UC system.
2002 – The Sixth Circuit handed down its decision in Grutter v.
In 2005, three years before the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act became law, the company laid down its own DNA policy, assuring employees that their genetic information will not factor into matters such as hiring, benefits or termination.
YouTube (bought by Google in 2006)
2007 – Proposal 2 enacted in Michigan banning preferential treatment of minorities in public college admissions, public employment, public education or public contracting.
Slowly but surely, the United States economy recovered from the 2008 recession – the largest since the Great Depression.
In 2010 IBM ranked among NAFE’s top 10.
2011 – Arizona enacted Proposition 107 banning preferential treatment of minorities in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
2013 – The Supreme Court once again upheld the notion that diversity in higher education admissions was a compelling state interest.
What started in the 80s with a desire for work-life balance will continue in 2020, with workers caring less about where they work and more about how they work with their team.
February 2021 - SFFA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in hopes of getting the case reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Rate Action Workforce's efforts to communicate its history to employees.
Do you work at Action Workforce?
Is Action Workforce's vision a big part of strategic planning?
Zippia gives an in-depth look into the details of Action Workforce, including salaries, political affiliations, employee data, and more, in order to inform job seekers about Action Workforce. The employee data is based on information from people who have self-reported their past or current employments at Action Workforce. The data on this page is also based on data sources collected from public and open data sources on the Internet and other locations, as well as proprietary data we licensed from other companies. Sources of data may include, but are not limited to, the BLS, company filings, estimates based on those filings, H1B filings, and other public and private datasets. While we have made attempts to ensure that the information displayed are correct, Zippia is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of this information. None of the information on this page has been provided or approved by Action Workforce. The data presented on this page does not represent the view of Action Workforce and its employees or that of Zippia.
Action Workforce may also be known as or be related to Action Workforce.