Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discrimination research essay paper
Discrimination research paper
Discrimination research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Discrimination research essay paper
On May 10, 2012 Complainant filed this action against Respondent for discrimination on the basis of her National Origin (Haitian, Caribbean), Race/Color (Black) and Disability (back injury) in violation of M.G.L. c. 151B §§ 4(1) and 4(16), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Complainant alleges that Respondent would not accommodate her disability and terminated her.
Complainant’s Allegations
Complainant is a Black female (Haitian, Caribbean). Complainant was employed by Respondent as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Complainant contends that on or about April 26, 2011 she suffered an on the job back injury. Complainant alleges that in or around late April 2011, her doctor faxed Respondent
…show more content…
Complainant is a member of protected classes (Black, Haitian, and Caribbean). Complainant alleges that Respondent failed to accommodate her work related injury while white employees with work related injuries were accommodated. Complainant named three white employees (S.T., A.D., and D. L/N/U) who suffered on the job injuries and were accommodated by Respondent, whereas Complainant claims she was not. Complainant was not treated differently. The investigation reveals that Complainant admits she was accommodated with light duty just as the comparators she names. Furthermore, the investigation reveals that according to Complainant, the named comparators suffered different and less severe injuries than her, so they are not similarly situated. Complainant cannot show that she was treated differently from similarly situated employees and therefore, Complainant fails to make a prima facie case of discrimination based on her protected
Moran, John Jude. "Disability Discrimination." Employment Law: New Challenges in the Business Environment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2014. 413-14. Print.
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
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.
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
Facts: In the above case, employee Joel Hernandez was tested positive for cocaine. With the fear of being dismissed from his job, he acknowledged that his behaviour violated petitioner Raytheon Company's workplace conduct rules, and obviously, was pressed to quit his job. Also, the reason for the employee resignation was also based on the notion that had he not resigned it would be petitioner who would eventually fired him from his work. After more than two years of rehabilitation, petitioner applied to be re-employed alleging on his application that the following had previously hired him. In his application, he also attached letters coming from, his pastor about his active church participation and from an Alcoholics Anonymous counsellor about his regular visit and attendance at meetings and his immediate recovery. When a HR employee of petitioner reviewed Hernandez application, she then rejected his application on the ground that petitioner has a policy against rehiring employees who are terminated for workplace wrongdoing. According to the HR employee, she did not know that that employee was a former drug addict when she rejected his application. As a result to this development, Hernandez instituted a suit and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), averring that his rights has been violated in consonant with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Therefore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as a consequence, gave a go signal to the respondent and issued a right-to-sue letter and the right to file an ADA action. Following this, respondent established an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) action, alleging that petitioner did not act on his application for the reason that he has a record of drug addition and/or because he was known before as being a drug user. On the other hand, petitioner responded by filing a summary judgement motion. This resulted to respondent's argumentation in the alternative that in the case that petitioner sought for a neutral no-rehire policy in his case, it is still sufficient to a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) because of that policy's disparate impact.
The suit veronica filed against Wind Power Company meets all the requirements that she must show to succeed on her claim. She has a disability with being hearing impaired, she is otherwise qualified for the job, and she was denied the job in question because she is hearing impaired. In this case Wind Power Company made the mistake of telling Veronica that she was otherwise qualified for this job but it "needs someone who does not have a hearing problem." This is like plucking a line right out of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Since Veronica was qualified for this position, Wind Power Company could have attempted to make reasonable accommodations for her in this position with updated technology, different job assignments, and looking at how they could work around certain communication
This case, which Cynthia Holderfield filed on behalf of her sister and legal ward, Elise Ann Wasson, a disabled adult, alleges that as a result of the insured’s neglect, Elise sustained significant and permanent injuries following a fall on January 17, 2016, while she was a resident at one of our insured’s Community Integrated Living Arrangement homes. The plaintiff further alleges that the insured neglected Elise when its staff failed to obtain prompt medical attention for her injuries and properly report the fall.
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.
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is prohibited by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace, including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American descent.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by Federal agencies, in programs receiving Federal financial assistance, in Federal employment, and in the employment practices of Federal contractors (US Department of Justice, 2011...
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one of the most significant laws in American History. Before the ADA was passed, employers were able to deny employment to a disabled worker, simply because he or she was disabled. With no other reason other than the person's physical disability, they were turned away or released from a job. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. The act guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA not only opened the door for millions of Americans to get back into the workplace, it paved the road for new facilities in the workplace, new training programs, and created jobs designed for a disabled society (Frierson, 1990). This paper will discuss disabilities covered by the ADA, reasonable accommodations employers must take to accommodate individuals with disabilities, and the actions employers can take when considering applicants who have disabilities.
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
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.