More handpicked essays just for you.
Discrimination against women in the United States
Discrimination against women in the United States
Discrimination against women in the United States
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The BFOQ
Name of Student
Institution affiliation
The BFOQ
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.
Case Study of Discrimination
In 1981, Southwest Airlines is told to have
…show more content…
Nonetheless, after the court trial, it was decided that Southwest Airline’s marketing policy that involved hiring of attractive female applicants only was a violation of Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the hiring of attractive female flight attendants, the airline company had also made it a requirement that hired applicants should only be of a maximum height of 5 feet 9 inches. Notwithstanding, the court ruled that, the restriction was a barrier to hiring of men applicants and that it was violation of the same act. As a result, the airline company set aside a $1 million fund for penalties alone after the court ordered the company to pay the plaintiffs $275,000 (Justia, …show more content…
Therefore, the job could have been done by either of the genders that applied. For this reason, the defense of the airline company was compromised. This led to the court’s decision that the placement of discriminating conditions such as the maximum height rule and the hiring of attractive female candidates only was a violation of Title VII under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Indeed, the unlawful and impermissible discrimination exercised by the airline company denied the male applicants the above mentioned privileges and thus was a just cause of action taken by Gregory R.
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
Elauf, with the help of the EEOC, sued Abercrombie on the grounds of religious discrimination. The U.S. The legal questions in this case were whether an applicant can claim disparate treatment without first proving the employer had knowledge of the need for an accommodation and whether Title VII applies only when an applicant has informed the employer of a need for an accommodation. Holding: The Court reversed and remanded the 10th Circuit judgment. The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim.
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, ...
Affirmative action, the act of giving preference to an individual for hiring or academic admission based on the race and/or gender of the individual has remained a controversial issue since its inception decades ago. Realizing its past mistake of discriminating against African Americans, women, and other minority groups; the state has legalized and demanded institutions to practice what many has now consider as reverse discrimination. “Victims” of reverse discrimination in college admissions have commonly complained that they were unfairly rejected admission due to their race. They claimed that because colleges wanted to promote diversity, the colleges will often prefer to accept applicants of another race who had significantly lower test scores and merit than the “victims”. In “Discrimination and Disidentification: The Fair-Start Defense of Affirmative Action”, Kenneth Himma responded to these criticisms by proposing to limit affirmative action to actions that negate unfair competitive advantages of white males established by institutions (Himma 277 L. Col.). Himma’s views were quickly challenged by his peers as Lisa Newton stated in “A Fair Defense of a False Start: A Reply to Kenneth Himma” that among other rationales, the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action (Newton 146 L. Col.). This paper will also argue that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action should still be allowed and reserved for individuals whom the state unfairly discriminates today.
“…Everybody jumped on him, and beat him senseless… Everybody was hitting him or kicking him. One guy was kicking at his spine. Another guy was hitting him on the side of his face… he was unconscious. He was bleeding. Everybody had blood on their forearms. We ran back up the hill laughing… He should have died… He lost so much blood he turned white. He got what he deserved…” (Ridgeway 167). The skinheads who were beating this man up had no reason to do so except for the fact that he was Mexican. Racism in this day and age is still as big of a problem as it was in the past, and as long as hate groups are still around to promote violence, society is never going to grow to love one another.
Racial discrimination is a pertinent issue in the United States. Although race relations may seem to have improved over the decades in actuality, it has evolved into a subtler form and now lurks in institutions. Sixty years ago racial discrimination was more overt, but now it has adapted to be more covert. Some argue that these events are isolated and that racism is a thing of the past (Mullainathan). Racial discrimination is negatively affecting the United States by creating a permanent underclass of citizens through institutional racism in business and politics, and creating a cancerous society by rewriting the racist history of America. Funding research into racial discrimination will help society clearly see the negative effects that racism
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
Pan American Airways Inc. is a classic example of the various discriminations that occur in the aviation industry. Many job seekers especially male ones were denied the chance to operate as cabin flight attendants based on their gender. Although companies like Pan American Airways Inc. argue that their decisions to decline applications of qualified male attendants is based on business necessity, Fifth Circuit Court found out that there were no adverse effects that hiring male flight attendants like Diaz could subject their company operations or customers to. Based on the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, airline companies should adopt effective hiring policies that would ensure employees are hired based on their qualifications and experience rather than their gender, race, or other factors that may not add value to the company’s
Canadians view themselves as morally correct, yet the Indigenous peoples are oppressed and discriminated by Canadians. The Aboriginal peoples culture would last longer without Canada since Canada wants to control first, but not by understanding the culture and heritage. Aboriginal peoples express how they felt about the Canadian “Myth of Progress”. Some other works take a more satirical look like “Tidings of Comfort and Joy” but the points still stand. One of the points is Canadians are discriminating the Indigenous peoples to be lazy and corrupt.
It is hard to believe that after electing a minority president, the United States of America can still be seen as a vastly discriminatory society. A question was posed recently after a viewing of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream…” speech of whether his dream has become a reality. After consideration, a majority of the viewers said no. Although many steps have been taken to improve racial equality in America, there is still no way to legislate tolerance. Dr. King’s message of equality for all has been lost in a black and white struggle over the taken meaning of his context. Until our society can allow all people to live in peace we will never truly achieve King’s dream. Case in point, referring to President Obama as our "our First Black President" should not be considered a statement of pride over how far we have come. Placing this racial qualifier, even in a positive light, only serves to point out his minority status, not the fact that he is the President of the United States. According to Dr. King's dream, a man or woman, black or white, would be viewed as President without qualifying their differences from mainstream America.
The intent of this paper is not to determine guilt or malice, but instead to present the facts presented from both sides of the argument. The legal definition of discrimination will be explored as well as opinions and views from several sources familiar with the accusations. Potential legal ramifications resulting from broadcasting non-essential transmissions over a FAA air traffic control frequency will also be presented. Furthermore, statutory, regulatory, and judicial activity with regard to this issue will be explored.
Airline travelers believe that discriminatory screenings violate the constitutional protection of equality for everyone, nevertheless, very few travelers will inconvenience themselves to ensure that everyone waiting to get on an airplane receives equal treatment.
Stopping discrimination in business is a must. Discrimination is treating, or proposing to treat someone unfavorably, because of how that person looks or his or her family background. It is a bad racial act that needs to stop. Many of Americans are discrimated and prevented from getting a job because of how they look, act or where they are from. Employers can be held legally responsible for doing such things. They are working on an equal opportunity policy term that will set out clear and simple rules of what's acceptable and what's not acceptable in the workplace. This will minimize confusion for employees, managers, and others at their jobs
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.