More handpicked essays just for you.
Sexual discrimination against women at work
Case studies in sexual harassment in the workplace
Case studies in sexual harassment in the workplace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sexual discrimination against women at work
Both Appellants decided to challenge the summary judgment of the court on Title VII hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims, but their claims did not meet the requirements that comprise a prima facie case. Neither of the Appellants were subjected to menial or degrading work, and there was no proof of harassment directed towards them to promote termination. The court ruled that Ruba offered reasonable solutions in both cases, which lead to the Appellants not being pleased with the offer and ended in them voluntarily leaving the organization. Because neither of Appellant’s made the complaints of sexual harassment known to Ruba directly, both were completely aware of the company’s policy and steps to take when reporting sexual
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.
The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
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.
For instance, Joanna Espinosa filed a sexual harassment against her former boyfriend at the University of Texas – Pan America. When they paid her no mind, she...
This case is a “he said – she said” situation. It is unclear who initiated the relationship to begin with. Many relationships between professors and students “occur between male faculty members, frequently older and married, and female students” (Lane, 2006, p. 2) such as this one. The professor denying the sexual relationship may or may not have prevented a scandal. The student, if infatuated, may have filed a sexual complaint in retaliation for refusing to have a relationship with her. If the professor had rejected the relationship, he may have thought the student would falsely accuse him of sexual harassment. However, since the relationship did occur, he may not have believed he was doing anything wrong or thought he was “above” the
In 2005, a female secretary filed a compliment regarding her exclusion from a social gathering on the basis of her gender. The case eventuated from an issue that the manager had not encouraged the secretary to attend the Christmas party which was served by a topless waitress. As a result of the secretary having no knowledge of the party occurring while working that night, she had become distressed by what she believed was happening...
In PHILLIPS v. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP (1971), Petitioner Mrs. Ida Phillips commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging that she had been denied employment because of her sex. The District Court granted summary judgment
“Calif. Training Rules On Harassment Final” is another great example as to why it is important to stay up to date on laws in the human resources profession. Laws continue to change and require more from employers. For the Sexual Harassment training plan, it will be imperative that this not only in full implementation, but is an ongoing and growing project that stays up to date with all laws.
A precedent case changed the way several businesses handle EEOC grievances. In the case of Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp, a female employee brought a lawsuit against her former employer claiming she had been sexually harassed and a lower court jury found in favor of the employee and award her punitive and compensatory damages. The employer did not realize an exclusion from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied to the business due to the small number of employees on the payroll. The Supreme Court found that even though Y&H Corp. did not employ fifteen or more employee it did not preclude a federal district court from hearing the complaint. This case directly influences the relaxed rules related to the Civil Rights Act for smaller businesses. A component of the thought behind a different level of enforcement for small businesses is they cannot handle the monetary implications of higher standards. Since this case in 2006, employers routinely make the applicable enforcement agency aware they fall below the employee threshold and this has provided an enhanced level of protection (Gentry, Robinson, Dibrell, & Franklin, 2013). This has not mitigated the risk that the EEOC will find a small business has violated Title VII and the business owner must appear in court to provide evidence they are a covered employer. The Arbaugh case created
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
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...
Schipani, C. (2013). Class Action Litigation After Dukes: In Search of a Remedy for Gender Discrimination in Employment. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 46(4), 1249-1277.
Sexual harassment in the workplace has been a huge problem in recent history. It can happen to anyone, and it can happen everywhere. It can affect all types of races, genders and ages. Statistics today show that more and more sexual harassment has become an issue due to the large number of cases presented. Mainstream media becomes consumed covering sexual harassment because of the high-profile cases.
In today’s workplace, sexual harassment is a growing problem. The legal definition of sexual harassment is any unwelcome sexual advance or conduct on the job that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Another definition is the making of unwanted and offensive sexual advances or of sexually offensive remarks or acts, especially by one in a superior or supervisory position. Women and men of all ages, backgrounds, races and experience are harassed on the job. Sexual harassment encountered in workplaces is a hazard across the world that reduces the quality of working life, jeopardizes the well-being of women and men, undermines gender equality and imposes costs on firms and organizations.