According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission it is unlawful to discriminate against a person based on their gender (U.S EEOC) However, there are many cases around the world that deal with anti-discrimination laws against ones gender Anti-discrimination laws are put in place to make sure people are being treated equally in the workplace Almost every employee is subjected to protection under a lot of federal employment and anti-discrimination laws Also, some state laws may vary greatly depending on their employers and the protections provided to employees However, there are company’s out there who do not follow these laws Even though, these laws are required to be followed there are different underlining’s to these laws …show more content…
Well that is what happened in the case of Thompson v North American Stainless LP However, prior to the case Eric Thompson and his wife Miriam Regalado were working for a company named North American Stainless which is the owner and operator of a stainless steel manufacturing facility in Carroll County, KY According to Oyez, On September 2002, Miriam Regalado made a complaint that stated that her supervisors discriminated against her based on her gender which is discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 But, Regalado alleged that because of her gender Stainless demoted her twice and paid her less than similarly situated male employees However, on February 13, 2003, the EEOC notified North American Stainless of the charge Considerably more than three weeks later, North American Stainless terminated Thompson 's employment Stainless fired Thompson for what it proclaimed were performance-based reasons Thompson himself filed a complaint, which he alleged that he was fired in retaliation for his fiancé Regalado 's EEOC charge Retaliating in that way, Thompson proclaimed, violated section 704(a) of Title VII, which forbids an employer to "discriminate against any of his employees because he has made a charge under this title” meaning that he should …show more content…
The company said that they let him go for weak performance in the work place in which I feel gave them an excuse to let Thompson go. I also don’t agree because I feel that he was being discriminated against just because his wife filed a complaint with the EOCC. Even though Thompson was “a person claiming to be aggrieved … by an alleged employment practice” I feel that the en banc Sixth Circuit reasoning’s that Thompson was not entitled to sue NAS for retaliation just because he had not engaged in any activity protected by the statute is still questionable (Oyez). I also don’t feel that under that statute is defined fully. Also, I believe that his firing by NAS constituted unlawful retaliation because he should have not been fired especially under those circumstances. I believe that the courts did not make the right decision. The question that people should ask themselves is do they find it lawful to fire a person based on what they spouse did or do, are we just as
During the semester we have explored multiple case studies that have had some rather cut and dry solutions. Our final case study features the very grey area of workplace cultural discrimination providing a scenario in which there is possible evidence of several counselors who, during lunch break, are singling out clients of a certain minority and speaking in a highly derogatory fashion about them. In this scenario we are part of the supervisory staff and the counselor who brings us this information has been in the field for half a decade and is the same race as one of the main counselors he has concerns about. That counselor has only a brief amount of experience and this is his first position since obtaining his CSC-AD certification. We
Affirmative Action Question: Newton and Wasserstrom seem to disagree about whether affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Explain how each arrives at their position about whether or not affirmative action is similar to or different from discriminatory laws of the Jim Crow era
The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
Historically, females have been discriminated against in the United States based solely on their gender. Gender or sex discrimination may be described as the unfair treatment of a person in their employment because of that person's sex. It is illegal to discriminate based on sex and it may result in negative effects on employment include pay, position and title, advancements and training opportunities or whether or not an individual is hired or fired from a job.
Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted on July 2nd, 1964 as a mitigation strategy to prohibit any form of discrimination on grounds of a person’s religion, sex, color, race or their national origin. The law was originally meant to solve the problem of discrimination witnessed during voter registration. It was also expected to solve discrimination present at workplaces and schools where there was widespread racial discrimination. However, the law has become an even more relevant tool and has seen to it that hiring and firing processes by many companies are adherent to it.
David Dunlap, a 52-year old African American male with 25 year boilermaker experience, 15 years of which include foreman experience, brought suit under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination by the TVA after being looked over after interviewing for positions within the TVA. The district court agreed that “Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, concluding that TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants” (Walsh, 2010). The case was heard by the 6th District Court of Appeals and that court “affirmed the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district court’s award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap” (Walsh, ...
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.
1. Define majority group. Describe specifically how the three victims and their communities represent a minority.
Discrimination should be avoided at all costs if for no other reason than it is against the law. It is expressly forbidden because of the problems it has caused for certain groups. However, forbidding it was not enough and laws were passed to counteract its effects. But the legislative approach was unable to achieve acceptance and inclusion; it could not create and/or maintain an environment that appreciated each person and treated him or her with dignity and respect. The eradication of discrimination requires more than legal compliance. It goes beyond mere placement of individuals. An inclusive environment brings out the best in everyone and enhances life’s experiences.
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?
Employee discrimination occurs when an employer harasses or terminate an employee purely because of race, religion, gender, age, national origin, and/or disabilities. While there have been great improvements in eliminating these discriminatory actions, sexual orientation and/or gender identity based discrimination isn’t
Discrimination, in one form or another, goes on everyday in the world around us. Discrimination affects all of us whether we are aware of it or not. Discrimination is defined as “unjustified differential treatment, especially on the basis of characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion” (MacKinnon). According to Eugene Lee of California Labor and Employment Law “racial discrimination and racial harassment” are the most popular complaint when it come to discrimination in the United States.
Across the world, even in the United States, a paragon of progress, women in general are valued less than men because of… something. The origins of this rumor come from a combination of misleading information, the human need for self improvement and a progressive movement based around spreading awareness more than facts. When you grow up in a political bubble like Madison, you tend to hear more echoes than arguments and so when I began to learn about feminism in my middle school history class, the basics that I could gather was that people deserved to be equal and women were paid less than men. For whatever reason I never really questioned it and just believed that “things should change” without really knowing what things would need to change.
Promotion Discrimination: The Next Big Thing?" Employee Relations Law Journal 36.3 (2010): 46-53. ProQuest. Web. 29 May 2016.
Gender discrimination is treating individuals in a different way in their employment because of their sex. Person who have been experiencing this kind of discrimination may have been rejected for employment. Employer who provides different working conditions such as salaries, positions or bonus to women and men are ...