Is This Unlawful Discrimination? Essay
Is This Unlawful Discrimination?
Unlawful discrimination occurs when an employer commits an adverse action against an employee because of the following attributes of the person: race, color, sex, age, pregnancy, etc. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may take action when an investigation shows that there has been a violation in a person’s civil rights just because of his or her attributes.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects individuals from discrimination based on religion. Religious discrimination is treating a person differently because of their religious believes. In this case Elaine Mobley, a member of the nonsectarian Unitarian Universalist Church, can file a legal sue under religious discrimination or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because she was discriminated by employees and her supervisor. They said that she would be “making efforts repeatedly to “save the soul” of a fellow employee” (Neill, 2014, Web). A proven wrongful dismissal will tend to lead to two main remedies: reinstatement of the dismissed employee, and/or monetary compensation for the wrongfully dismissed.
In this case the court should look on how Elaine Mobley told her supervisor that she was feeling harassed by her employees, and shortly after that she was fired. In this case the judge should rule in favor of Elaine Mobley, because of what we have of the case it seems that she was being harassed and told her director of division and did nothing but fire her. The employer did in fact discriminate unlawfully, because you cannot force someone to become one of your same religion. It is especially unlawful to leave messages in her desk stating “How can you speak of God and Reject me? I love you and know all about you” as the book stated (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 56).
In case #2 Edward Roberts was unlawfully mistreated because of his color and/or race. Edward Roberts can legally sue the trucking company, because after he applied in person after responding to a newspaper ad, he never got an interview or was contracted. He later saw that eight employees where hired from April thru June 2005, right after he applied for the job. The company told Edward Roberts that there was no available space when he went, but they could have called him to an interview when space was available. Edward knew that the employees hired had less hours of experience than him. In this case he can sue for discrimination, “The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement” (History.com Staff, 2010).
The court should look at why the company didn’t call Edward when there was an opening and should also investigate why the company also only contracted eight white people. These two issues can be seeing as discrimination against race. The judge should rule in favor of Edward Roberts because he has more experience than the rest of the eight white hired employees, the company makes it look that they didn’t hire him because he was black which makes the employer look like he is discriminating unlawfully. And I also think the company did look bad by just hiring all white people, if they didn’t like Edward or thought that he was over qualified for the position they could have dressed it up and hired at least one Africa-American.
In Thelma Jones case, she is unlawfully sexually discriminated because she was described as “macho” and was told, “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, style her hair, and wear jewelry” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 57). The law clearly states “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”(US EEOC, 2014). The court should take a look at what the partners said like, “she was sometimes overly aggressive” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 57). The judge should rule in favor of Thelma Jones because she is being sexually discriminated. The employer did in fact discriminate unlawfully because you’re not allowed to tell a woman to be more “femininely” just to get a higher position.
In James McFadden vs. Airline company, James, a transsexual person, told his employer that he would be dressing as a woman in preparation to his “surgical sex reassignment”. James was fired from his job because he refused to dress and act as a man. In this case the legal statute that could apply would be the sex discrimination against James. The court should look at what happen, James told his employer about the sex change and employer told him he had to keep dressing as a man, he refused and was fired. The judge should rule in favor of the Airline Company because the employer told James he couldn’t do that, and it is understandable because of airport security. He was also no discriminated because he was still a man, and he said he was treated differently from the other women employed.
Andrew Johnson would be able to apply for racist discrimination, because of his color, white people would have name-callings for him. The court should take a look at the name-calling, what was done after Andrew complained to senior management, and the threat done to Andrew after he was told, “his days were probably numbered” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 57), after getting injured and recuperating, he got a letter from management saying that the accept his resining. Andrew denied it, and requested his job back, but he was denied. The judge should rule in favor of Andrew because the employer unlawfully discriminated because had no reason for name-calling and resining him without Andrew wanting to resign.
Paul Martin could have file sue on the statue of sexual discrimination. The court could have a look at the two candidates and why Betty Palmer was selected and not Martin. The county said that, “Palmer had gotten the job as part of voluntary affirmative action plan” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 58). The court should rule in favor of the county because they are trying to build a better composition of the county where there is no race or gender problem. The employer said that they where both qualified but for certain reasons Palmer got the job, and there is no unlawful discrimination in that.
In this case Elnora Williams is able to sue in sex discrimination. The court should look at the reason of why there has never been a female as a principal, or look at a statement that says that it has to be a male person who runs the school. The judge should rule in favor of Elnora Williams because in no place does it say that a male should always be principal of the school. The employer did sexually discriminate against Elnora for saying that a male image should be used to run a school.
Frank Poole was in all his rights when he filed a suit against Department because he was discriminated with his disability (AIDS). The court should take into issue what the doctors have said, “ medical director’s report that Poole’s condition did not place his students at any risk” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 58). The judge should file against the Department, the employer was discriminating Poole with his disability, if doctors already said that no body has risk of contagiousness.
Lauren Hill had the right to sue if she felt there was any sex discrimination against her. The court should take a look at the evaluation performance, and why the results showed that she was not working as good to get a raise. The court should also investigate if any other women where promoted. The judge should rule in favor of the company, there is no evidence that Lauren Hill was sexually discriminated by her employer.
Donna Skeen has all the right to sue the dealership because of all the disability, name-calling, and age discrimination that she suffered. The court should take a look at all that was said to her, the name-calling, telling her “old lady” and if she had Alzheimer’s. The reasons why Donna is suing are all litigable reasons for her to win the case. The judge should rule in favor of Donna Skeen for disability discrimination as well as age discrimination. The employer knew about the name-calling and did nothing about it.
Jerome Atwood a firefighter suing the city department for reverse discrimination has all the rights to do so, Atwood is more qualified than the minority firefighters. The court should investigate on why there was a layoff, and why Atwood was the one laid off. The judge should rule in favor of the City Department because they had a layoff plan aimed to protect minority firefighters. The employer was just doing his job and there was no wrong doing of it.
Herbert Fox disability discrimination is the right way to sue his 25 working years at the furniture company. The court should look at the disability of Mr. Fox, he said that the medicine given to him would have some troubles with his schedule. Mr. Fox was also terminated when he filled for disability benefits. The judge should rule in favor of Mr. Fox because if Mr. Fox has already said that the medicine given to him would counter effect his working schedule the company should do something to help him especially when he has 25 years with them
. Case #13
Lia Lee field for suit under the race or nationality, because of her accent the company did not give her the promotion. The court should take the time to hear Lia speak or perfume some kind of reading demonstration that she can read and speak well English. The judge should rule in favor of the bank, if they don’t think she is ready to be a customer service specialist they know what is best for their company. The employer never said anything racist or against her nationality, only said that her English skills weren’t up to level, that is not discrimination.
Margaret Reynolds has all the right to sue Slendercise, Inc. because of weight, size or physical discrimination. The court need to look at the reason why they didn’t hire Margaret, and the reason they gave her as well. The judge should rule in favor of Margaret Reynolds, because in no place does it say that you have to be a certain height, weight, or size to be an aerobics teacher, this is a psychical discrimination that the employer took onto Margaret the employee.
Abdul Mohammed filed suit and has legal statute of applying religious harassment and ethnic discrimination against the steel company. The court should look at both the times Abdul asked them for a private room, the discrimination, name-calling, and mocking of Muslims. The judge should rule in favor of Abdul because nobody should be making fun of any religion especially name-calling. The employer knew about the problem and twice did not do anything to change it.
History.com Staff (2010). Civil Rights Act. Retrieved from
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act Neill and Byrne (2014). Religious Discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.workplacefairness.org/religion#1 Nkomo, S., Fottler, M., McAfee, B. (7 edition). Human Resource Management Application. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2014). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm