Odes has filed a discrimination suit against Native Intimates after it terminated her for a potential employee dress policy dispute. Twenty-nine year old, Lauren Odes claims Native Intimates fired her for being “too hot.” Odes also claims that Native Intimates fired her because her breasts were too large. Odes says that her managers asked her to “tape her breasts down.” The managers had previously complained about her physical appearance and attire at work. One day, they said that she either needed to put on a red robe, or go buy another outfit. While she was out purchasing the other outfit, the managers terminated her. Odes claims she suffered discriminatory termination and is suing for gender and religious discrimination. The rules …show more content…
Rules of Disparate Treatment:
For a disparate treatment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII, the plaintiff must establish prima facie. Prima facie is the initial burden of proof the plaintiff must meet to have standing. Prima facie is made up many considerations that mainly address if an employer treats an employee unfairly for being a member of a protected class. The protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.
If the plaintiff can prove prima facie the burden shifts to the employer. The employer must provide evidence that they fired the plaintiff for reasons other than discrimination. If the employer can prove this, the burden shifts back to the employee. The employee must then prove that the reasons the employer gave for termination are a pretext for discrimination. If the plaintiff can prove pretext, the court will find that the employer discriminated under disparate
…show more content…
While her employers are Orthodox Jews, they did not require their employees to be a certain religion or follow their religious codes. The employer’s religion is irrelevant to Odes’ termination, because anyone can have an expectation for people to dress conservatively regardless of their religion. Additionally, Odes is the only party to mention religion. No record exists of Native Intimates ever mentioning religion in relation to Odes’ termination. Again Odes fails to satisfy prima facie on these grounds.
Since Odes fails to satisfy prima facie for gender discrimination, Native Intimates does not have the burden of proving they fired Odes for nondiscriminatory reasons. Furthermore, because Odes did not meet the burden of proof that Native Intimates discharged her for her religion, no explanation is necessary on Native Intimates part.
Accordingly, there is no need to analyze whether or not decision was pretext for discrimination because Odes never met the original burden of
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 ruling found that Duke Power Company had violated the Title VII because of their company discriminatory practices; the Supreme Court explains the case conclusion Title VII's purpose is not to restrict testing or diploma requirements for a company hiring or promotions, the act is here to stop segregation; Title VII in no way prohibits testing or diploma requirements for hiring or promotions. Indeed, when they are properly developed and used, tests and other employment criteria can be an effective, efficient means for employers to evaluate applicants. But as the Court explained in Griggs, “What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract.” (NAACP) CONCLUSION
In the case of a reasonable person test, “a reasonable person in [the employee 's] position would have felt that he was forced to quit because of intolerable and discriminatory working conditions.” The evidence was inconclusive due to Thomas’ “subjective personal discomfort, however, was most likely not the product of any action by appellees but, rather, the product of human nature.” Thomas v. Douglas
It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact, the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." ():-. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm on Mar 17, 2014
According to Smith, Native bodies will continue to be seen as expendable and inherently violable as long as they continue to stand in the way of the theft of Natives lands” (Smith 2005, 69). That is to say, that racism plays a major role in the widespread anxieties produced by white supremacy, regarding a rise in the global population of Native Americans. Although, “some populationists say population growth contributes to starvation,” and organizations may claim that they want to reduce the size of all ethnic and racial groups, in the end, they often work to reduce populations of color (Smith 2005, 71). In the white dominated society, “black and dark may be associated with death, evil and destruction” (Anzaldúa 1987, 91). To clarify, “people of color are scapegoated for environmental destruction, poverty, and war. Women of color are particularly threatening, as they have the ability to reproduce the next generations of communities of color. Consequently, it is not surprising that control over the reproductive abilities of women of color has come to be seen as a ‘national security’ issue for the U.S.” (Smith 2005, 79). Native American women should be treated equally, like any other woman because they also have reproductive rights. According to Min-ha, “it is as if the sexual act has become virtually the only direct contact with
Disparate Impact arises when an employer's practices unintentionally excludes a protected class disproportionately (Player, Shoben and Lieberwitz, 1995). A "protected class" is a group of people, with common characteristics, which Congress has determined must be protected from inequality ("On-the-Job Discrimination: Gender Discrimination," 2004). This paper will analyze the landmark disparate impact case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424, 1971) from its beginning to its conclusion in the Supreme Court. Included will be the facts of the case and the issues detailed, as well as the history of the case from initial filing to final ruling.
Today, Native American women continue to be victimized and remain vulnerable targets within, their communities, reservations, tribal law enforcement agencies, and federal law enforcement agencies. In order to restore peace and justice for Native women we first need to have critical and substantive discussion regarding all aspects of sexual assault on r...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
Sandy Welsh, Jacquie Carr, Barbara MacQuarrie, Audrey Huntly “I’m Not Thinking of It as Sexual Harassment”: Understanding Harassment across Race and Citizenship. Gender and Society. 20.1 ( 2006): 87-107. Print.
A non-guilty verdict in the murder trial of Bradley Barton accused of killing Cree mother of three Cindy Gladue who bled to death from an eleven centimetre internal laceration argues that the wound was the result of rough sex. Gladue known in Edmonton as a sex worker spent two night with Barton in an Edmonton hotel room in June 2011. This essay will argue the appeal that was warranted through looking firstly at feminist analyses of sexual assault and legal consent, secondly, the contexts of intersectional power relations/ interlocking oppressions such as Gladue being a women from a Cree nationality who works as a sex worker, thirdly the problematic notion of Gladue being the bearer
Discrimination in the workplace occurs when an employee experiences harsh or unfair treatment due to their race, religion, national origin, disabled or veteran status, or other legally protected characteristics. Discrimination is one of the biggest problems people face in the workplace and it must be dealt with forcefully.
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.