Anti Discrimination Case Study

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

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

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