Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of the pregnancy discrimination act
Pregnancy discrimination review of literature
The importance of the pregnancy discrimination act
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of the pregnancy discrimination act
Sarducci Vs. Dawson's
From the evidence, it is clear that both the EEOC and the MCAD have jurisdiction in this case.
- 1. Was the complaint filed in a timely manner? Yes, it was filed within 180 days of the alleged violation to comply the EEOC guidelines and within 300 days to comply with the MCAD guidelines. The violation occurred on January 23, 2006 and the complaint was filed seven days later on January 30, 2006.
- 2. Are the employer and employee covered by Title VII or related laws? Yes, the employer is covered under The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979 which is an amendment to Title VII (15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks per year) and under Massachusetts state law (6 or more employees). All employers covered by Title VII are covered by the pregnancy discrimination act. Marie Sarducci is an employee under the act and not an exception because of being a political appointee or federal contractor.
- 3. Is the complaint covered by Title VII or related laws? Yes, the complainant is alleging pregnancy discrimination which is covered by The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979, an amendment to Title VII and a form of illegal sex discrimination. This is also covered under Massachusetts law.
- 4. Does the complainant have standing to file? Yes, because the complainant is the victim claiming the discrimination.
- 5. Was the complaint properly filed? We assume so since both the EEOC and MCAD staff assist the complainant in the process.
2. What definition would be appropriate for the facts of the case?
From the facts of this case, it is evident that the appropriate definition of discrimination would be Disparate Treatment. Disparate Treatment discrimination occurs when an employer treats individuals less favorably than others based on race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, or disability status. At face value, it appears as though Sarducci was treated differently and subsequently fired once it was known by her employer that she was pregnant. If true, this is a direct violation of The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979 which is covered under Title VII as a form of sex discrimination.
3. How would a plaintiff demonstrate a prima facie case?
The plaintiff would have to demonstrate a prima facie case by using comparative evidence that she was treated differently once it was known she was pregnant, which is in violation of Title VII, specifically The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1979.
Originally the district court dismissed the action against Target due to the argument that the reason why the SLT Mr. Armiger (person in charge of recruitment at that time) does not schedule an interview with the plaintiffs was because he was very busy and therefore he could not reply their messages or calls. Subsequently, the EEOC presented
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
McKenna violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and was completely liable for his actions. Similar cases such as Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth & Faragher v. City of Boca Raton(1998) – Employer is always liable when a hostile environment is created by a supervisor that results in tangible employment action (e.g., termination). It is a also evident from the case of Harris vs. Forklift (1993)- psychological damage not necessary for illegal “hostile or abusive environment” that a “reasonable person” would find hostile or abusive support that Mr. Mckenna is liable.
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.
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.
Primarily, the employee was in violation of federal laws, which protect employees regarding slanderous or racially remarks. According to Title VII, it is...
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is forbidden 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 decent. The case was heard by the Seventh District Court of Appeals and ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered the final verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
Ledbetter started working for Goodyear Tire Co. in 1979; she had been working there for about twenty years and there was no job she could not do. In 1998 she received an anonymous tip saying that she was being paid much less than the male worker. She was being paid $44,700 a year while the male workers were getting paid twenty-five percent more (Reah, 2008). Goodyear prohibited its employees from discussing their pay. Ledbetter took the situation to court. The discrimination was violating Title VII which prohibits discrimination in the workforce based on race and sex (NWLC, 2013). After she filed a complaint with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), her case went to trial, and the jury awarded her backpay and approximately $3.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the extreme nature of the pay discrimination to which she had been subjected (NWLC, 2013). Goodyear claimed “Ledbetter had to had filed a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of first discriminatory paycheck even though she did not know about the discrimination” (Reah, 2008); the Supreme Court agreed with Goodyear’s claim and ruled against
Victims of sexual harassment are able to sue under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 whic...
In the EEOC’s Charge Process, John must go to his EEOC’s representative within this company and file a complaint. This is considered the administrative process. Pertinent information must be given about the plaintiff and defendant such as name, address and phone number, the date and a brief description of the charge. Once the charge has been filed the employer is notified that charges have been filed. The charge would be thoroughly investigated. A written description and date of alleged violation is requested again; interviews with people, documents are reviewed; and sometimes the facility is visited which the alleged discrimination occurred. As an alternative the charge may be assigned to the EEOC Mediation Program instead of an investigation, which both parties must consent to. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the charge returns back to investigation. There is a possibility that the charge be dismissed. If this is the case, John will be able to file a lawsuit on his behalf within 90 days.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, is specific to this case concerning Marwan’s conduct and is clearly stated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This regulation protects employees against workplace discrimination on the basis of gender, race, creed, origin and religion and relates to all employers whether local, state or national. Organizations that employ fifteen or more employees has to stand by this regulation (Civil Rights Act, n.d.). According to this law, a commission called Equal Employment Opportunities Commission has been arranged, to protect individuals in contradiction of discrimination and enforce this as well as additional pertinent laws such as discrimination. Discrimination within the workplace has been in existence for a long time and was initiated by the U.S. Authorities once hearing several cases of harassment. The discrimination law protects applicants, employers and employees. The law states that no employer can take recruitment decision solely on the basis of the race, origin, gender, handicap of the applicant and is unable to take favor over anyon...
...nequal pay, sexual harassment, seniority and maternity leave. The antidiscrimination laws that exist today and the cases that are successful because of them create an awareness that no employer will go unaffected if a discrimination suit is brought forth. (Jennings, 2006)
Since the time women were eligible to be an employee of a workplace, they have become victims of discrimination. Discrimination is the practice of treating a person or group of people differently from other people (Webster, 2013). Thousands of women have suffered from discrimination in workplaces because they are pregnant, disabled, or of the opposite sex. It is crazy to think that someone would fire a woman because she became pregnant and needed to have some work adjustments ("pregnancy and parenting"). A woman goes through a lot of giving birth to children, and men will never understand the complications a mother encounters during the pregnancy.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1997, January). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved from: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html
Workplace harassment is unwelcome actions that are based on a person’s race, religion, color, and sex, and gender, country of origin, age, ethnicity or disability. The targets of the harassment are people who are usually perceived as “weaker” or “inferior” by the person who is harassing them. Companies and employers can also be guilty of workplace harassment if they utilize discriminatory practices against persons based on ethnicity, country of origin, religion, race, color, age, disability, or sex. These discriminatory practices have been illegal since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act of 1964), and have been amended to be more inclusive of other people who experience discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (The Civil Rights Act of 1991), and most recently, President Obama’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Stolberg, 2009).