In the case of Elaine versus Jerry, the legal issues involves the plaintiff suing the defendant for termination of employment. Elaine had only been working for the company for two months, however, upon termination Jerry did not provide her with an explanation for her dismissal. Initially, when Elaine was hired on to work for the company, she received a letter declaring great career opportunities and an annual salary of $30,000. Was there an annual employment contract that was broken by the employer? Since the company is an employment-at-will employer, does Jerry need to provide an explanation for the plaintiff’s termination? After Elaine was terminated, Jerry hired a man named Kramer, who had less job experience and education than Elaine for the position. Was there certain job or educational credentials required for the position? Is there an adequate amount of information obtainable …show more content…
Was the plaintiff a victim of job discrimination, which infringes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also identified as the Fair Employment Practices Act? Therefore, in regards to this case, before a presiding can be delivered, there are a number of questions that must be answered. The Plaintiff, Elaine, bears the burden of proof, henceforth the impact the complainant must come across in order to win their case. First, according to the contract exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, Elaine claims to have been wrongfully discharged on the bases of an implied-in-fact contract. When Elaine was hired on to the company, she was offered an annual salary of $30,000 with great career opportunities. The plaintiff claims that she signed an express employment contract for the entire duration of the term. For that reason, under common law, when Jerry terminated Elaine, the employer was in violation of an implied-in-fact contract and the plaintiff has every
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions.
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.
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. Race, color, national origin, gender, and religion are known as protected classes. The Supreme Court later established “several theories of discrimination that plaintiffs may purses based on the type of discrimination alleged.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015) The three most common theories are disparate treatment, mixed motives, and disparate impact. Aquino v. Honda is an example of disparate treatment as Aquino believe his was terminated, thus discriminated against, because of his race. Disparate Treatment is defined as “overt and intentional discrimination.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015)The burden of proof was on Honda to prove it had legitimate reason to terminate Aquino. The court ruled that Honda had met the burden of proof; the firing was not discriminatory as the accusations were not baseless nor did they amount to pretext. When the burned shifted back to Aquino to prove his firing was discriminatory in nature, he could not provide any
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.
1. Were Mr. Goebel and other African-American applicants victims of racial discrimination because of the hiring policies of the defendant? Explain your position and cite all relevant case law. If you cannot take a definitive position, explain what specific information you require to be able to take a
His complaint alleged that his termination was unconstitutional because he was not given an opportunity to respond to the charges against him before his removal. As a result he was deprived of liberty and property (steady employment) without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court ruled that his due process rights were not violated. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a consolidated appeal: Loudermill’s case together with another similar case (Cleveland Board of Education v Donnelly). The court reversed, in part, the previous decision and stated that the Board of Education had, in fact, violated Loudermill’s due process rights by removing his property right (to employment) before giving him a chance to respond to the charges against him. 3. Main Issue: Can a state remove a civil service employee’s property rights to employment before giving that employee an opportunity to respond to the charges which are the cause for the termination? 4. Court Deciding: United States Supreme Court. 5. Decision: Summary judgment affirming the decision of the Appeals
What uncompensated work did the plaintiff claim she performed? What should the district court have done with the statement of another employee that the plaintiff did not engage in work prior to her official start time?
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. & Hartman, Laura P. (2001). Employment Law for Business (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing. Downloaded February 4, 2008 from the data base of http://www.eeoc.gov
"UNITED STATES v. JONES." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 Nov. 2013 .
The question at stake was if a plaintiff could bring forth a suit of salary discrimination under Title VII when the unequal salary a person received during the 180-day limit prescribed in the provisions is ultimately the result of a long period of discrimination that reached far beyond the statutory limitations . Justice Alito delivered the majority opinion that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts that her failure to file with the EEOC when she first felt like her salary was based on discriminatory actions did not allow her special considerations for because she felt that her pay discrimination was not the same as other types of employment discriminations; however, they believed her claim to be untimely as a decision regarding pay has to do with a particular point in time, which in this case would only be permissible in the 180 days and the pay period after she filed the
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.
... I believe the inconsistent nature of the selection process and the lack of a clearly defined procedure for the selection of candidates, led to the court’s decision that some classes of candidates were treated unfairly. Employers and government agencies alike should utilize legal services to ensure that hiring and testing processes are equitable and legal. The Lewis v. City of Chicago case was found in favor of the plaintiffs that may have been an oversight in which the city simply desired to create a manageable hiring list. Illegal classifications and hiring projection errors created a case where a class action group was victims of disparate treatment.
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.
Work plays an important role in our daily life, it is considered much more huge part of our personal life. During our daily work we make many relationships throughout our career history. Sometimes these relationships become lasting, and sometimes employment discrimination might happen. This relationships that we thought it last could be cut off by the devastation of claims of discriminatory treatment. Discrimination in the workforce has been an issue since the first people of workers in United States in the present day and as well in the past. Some employees were subjected to a harsh working conditions, verbal abuse, denial of advancement,, and many other injustices. There was also the fact that certain employees were being treated differently than other employees.