.What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide? One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed. Originally the district court dismissed the action against Target due to the argument that the reason why the SLT Mr. Armiger (person in charge of recruitment at that time) does not schedule an interview with the plaintiffs was because he was very busy and therefore he could not reply their messages or calls. Subsequently, the EEOC presented …show more content…
According to Mr. Armiger in order to "protect the privacy of applicants," admitted that he threw away all unqualified resumes, including the plaintiffs’ resumes. They also found that Target 's record retention policy does not specifies that where a discrimination claim has been filed they must keep all personnel documentation until the case has been completed. Target responds to this allegation was that they address this requirement on a case-by-case basis and that they notify their employees to keep documents when a claim
(Cheeseman2013) In the National Labor Relation Board v Shop Rite Foods case some employees of Shop Rite Foods of Texas elected a worker union as a Bargaining agent for a collective bargaining agreement for over 3 months the agreement was still not settled. Then ShopRite began to notice a lot of it merchandise being damaged in the warehouse. They determined that the damage was being intentionally being caused by dissident employees as a pressure tactic to secure concessions from the company in the collective bargaining negotiations.
The Tucker vs. Walgreen Company was a nationwide known class action case. It fell into the category of race discrimination. This cases was brought to the attention of the law by African Americans who were employed at this retail and pharmacy store. This pledged that they were being discriminated to by the following acts:failure to move up in positions (promotion), dieing them the opportunity to apply for assistant manager and manager, and being assigned to an undesirable store for an extended period of time compared to whites. They filed a class action lawsuit with the demand of compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Along with these demands, the plaintiffs desired class certification for those who have been previously affected by the defendant’s discriminatory acts as well as any who will suffer from them in the future.
The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jury's findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a different method that would not effectively discriminate. The reason for the suit had to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while some of the others settled with the company on their own. In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims may not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected.
In the case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company the Supreme Court of the United States found the Duke Power Company liable for violating the civil rights of thirteen African American employees of Duke Power Company. This was a result of the Duke Power Company intradepartmental transfer policy requirements of a high school education and achieving a minimum scores on two aptitude tests. The intrade direct violation because the power company could not link the intradepartmental transfer policy to benefit or predict the how the employee will lead and serve Duke Power Company. Disparate treatment is the matter of proof. The plaintiff alleging direct, intentional discrimination must first be able to establish a prima facie case and second, he or she is able to establish that the employer was acting on the basis of a discriminatory motive (Caruth).The class action suit, on the behalf of the thirteen African American employees, resulted in a unanimous ruling in favor of Griggs, Duke Power Company.
Therefore, the job could have been done by either of the genders that applied. For this reason, the defense of the airline company was compromised. This led to the court’s decision that the placement of discriminating conditions such as the maximum height rule and the hiring of attractive female candidates only was a violation of Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Indeed, the unlawful and impermissible discrimination exercised by the airline company denied the male applicants the above mentioned privileges and thus was a just cause of action taken by Gregory R.
In the case of EEOC v. Management Hospitality of Rancine, Katrina Shisler and Michelle Powell, who were servants at an International House of Pancakes restaurant franchise in Rancine, Wisconsin, alleged that they were sexually harassed by an assistant manager Rosalio Gutierrez. The restaurant franchise was owned by Management Hospitality of Rancine, Inc. (MHR). During the servants’ time of employment, both women made claims that they were subjected to frequent sexually explicit comments, gestures and innuendos on the job. Shisler reported the behavior to another assistant manager, Nadia Del Rio; however, she blew off the claims. Shisler and Powell then reported Gutierrez’s behavior to general manager, Michelle Dahl, who also dismissed their claims. On behalf of Shisler and Powell, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued MHR alleging that Gutierrez created a hostile work environment; therefore, they were liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury ruled in favor of the two women; however, MHR appealed the ruling with the argument that it was not liable, because it had taken acceptable corrective and preventative measurements with regards to the harassment.
Considering her twenty employees, her thought process was to choose one individual from a racial or ethnic minority group to demonstrate the inclusiveness of the business. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (2016) made it illegal for an employer with fifteen or more employees to base any promotion decisions on the racial or ethnic makeup of an individual. According to Joni Hersch and Jennifer Bennett Shinall (2015), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted as a result of unfair treatment of minorities in all aspects of life, and President John F. Kennedy chose to focus his executive powers on creating additional legal changes to protect disadvantaged individuals. Based on Nancy Kubasek, Bartley Brennan, and M. Neil Browne’s (2015) discussion on ethical norms in law, these acts were put into place in order to provide justice, so all citizens would be treated the same regardless of race or ethnic
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission mission is to enforce federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against anyone applying for employment opportunities. Discrimination will be leading to major problems in the next few years, which could cause poverty, violence, and crime. Discrimination cases are having large payouts, but the cases being are not decreasing in large amounts. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is not living up to its mission because the discrimination cases being filed are increasing in the 21st century.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act created the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, also known as the EEOC. One of the primary jobs of the EEOC is to uphold the rules and regulations that were laid out by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to the EEOC’s webpage, “Title VII covers private, most pu...
The employer cited her mental condition and prolonged absence as the reason the dismissal. She decided to enlist the services of an attorney to get her employment benefits if not reinstatement to her job. However, since finishing her follow-up checkups, Dominic Ezeli, her doctor at the community hospital, says he has not heard from her.
Yes, the employer discriminated against “David” in withdrawing the job offer. It was evident that “David” was over qualified for this position based upon the unanimous recommendation he received from the selection committee. The fact that the hiring managers language and decision immediately changed soon as “David” began to explain his future transitions could exemplify discrimination against the transgender community.
nce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was first created in 1964 by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, their purpose has been more than addressing this piece of legislation. Many laws and amendments have been put into place to expand, limit, and direct the commission’s authority and responsibilities. A lot of the laws have been created before the Commission was a thought. The EEOC duties are to endorse these laws so that applicants and employees are allowed equal opportunity at employment. Their purpose is to interpret and enforce the federal laws to prevent discrimination. Many of the U.S. discriminations come down to the nine main protected bases for employment opportunities. The nine protected bases in U.S. that protects
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.
Harassment and discrimination can affect a business in many ways. Having a history of harassment and discrimination claims can damage a business’ reputation and affect its bottom line. It can cost the business current and future clients as well as investors and employees. Depending on the gravity of the claim(s), the process of settling the claim(s) can take anywhere from months to years. Meanwhile, the cost of the settlement and other fees continue to add up. A business might have to compensate the affected parties besides paying court fees and lawyers. The EEOC has seen a rise in monetary rewards from 7.5 million to 24.3 million (Glazer, 1996) However, all of these can be avoided by properly educating employers and employees about their rights and what harassment and discrimination entails.