Abercrombie & Fittch Stores Inc Case Summary

Title VII Rights Act of 1964 forbids employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin (EEOC, 1997). This law applies to federal, state and local employers. The above conditions may not be used to refuse to hire or for terminating an individual or in other words discriminate against any individual (EEOC, 1997). In order to release an employee in any of the above categories the employer must have documentation based on quantity or quality of production and the employer can also make this decision based on results of a professionally developed ability test, which cannot be used to discriminate (EEOC, 1997). If an employee feels they have been let go for an unjust reason they can file a formal

After she was fired, Leger filed a lawsuit alleging that HCS Staffing was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act). After hearing both sides, a federal court ruled in favor

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects individuals from discrimination based on religion. Religious discrimination is treating a person differently because of their religious

The United States is one of the most culturally and religiously diverse countries in the world. The founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that its people would have the ability to practice their religion with no threat of persecution. In order to accomplish the goal of religious freedom and continue to ensure that all people of any religion would be free to practice their religion, the United States passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits an employer from discriminating based on the religious views of its employees. As the citizens of the United States spend a large amount of time in their places of employment, religious practices that these employees feel are necessary for the true observance of their religion must be accommodated by the employers. This law contends that in cases where the accommodation of religious practices of its employees does not create undue hardships, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees to practices the beliefs of their religion. As the demographics of the United States continues to change with more religiously diverse people immigrating to the country, employers are coming under more pressure to ensure they are taking all possible precautions to accommodate the religious practices of its employees. These precautions are important as the once an employee has established a bona fide complaint of religious discrimination, the burden of proof then falls on the employer to prove they

Weber, 443 U.S. 193 the court reversed the appellate court affirm the district court finding of collectively bargained affirmative the plan of action violation of the title vii of Civil Rights Act 1964. The Judicial finding some craft exclusion to the rule Such as the following cases, United States v. Elevator Constructors, 538 F.2d 1012 (CA3 1976); Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts v. Altschuler, 490 F.2d 9 (CA1 1973); Southern Illinois Builders Assn. v. Ogilvie, 471 F.2d 680 (CA7 1972); Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor, 442 F.2d 159 (CA3 1971); Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F.2d 1047 (CA5 1969); Buckner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 339 F.Supp. 1108 (ND Ala. 1972), aff'd without opinion, 476 F.2d 1287 (CA5 1973). Also well as, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Challenge Ahead: Equal Opportunity in Referral Unions 58-94 (1976) (summarizing judicial findings of discrimination by craft unions); G. Myrdal, An American Dilemma 1079-1124 (1944); F. Marshall & V. Briggs, The Negro and Apprenticeship (1967); S. Spero & A. Harris, The Black Worker (1931); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Employment 97 (1961); State Advisory Committees, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 50 States Report 209 (1961); Marshall, The Negro in Southern Unions, in The Negro and the American Labor Movement 145 (J. Jacobson ed. 1968); App. 63,

This case law was where Dianne Rawlinson was attempting to seek employment as a correctional officer with the Alabama board of correction. Her position was officially called in Alabama a “Correctional Counselor.” Alabama Board of Corrections rejected the application form Dianne Rawlinson. She immediately filed a class action law suit under the Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964. Because of her sex was the primary dispute that they denied her employment which was a violation of federal law.

upon an employee's religion. This means, that generally an employer has to give their workers

Firstly, one of the main facts of this case is the fact that the company refused to hire a covered woman due to her religious practices and beliefs. According to the New York Times website, Mrs. Elauf felt, as she states it in Liptak’s article, discriminated and “disrespected because of her religious beliefs” (Liptak, 2015). She explains how the company action results in a religious discrimination which is prohibited by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Samantha also declares that the denial of her being hired is a result of an unequal treatment against her due to her religious beliefs although she is an American citizen. All Samantha Elauf tried to do was get a job in a company where she is used to be a customer as she enjoys fashion and thought she would receive the same treatment another American uncovered woman would receive as they are both American citizens thus should receive equal treatment no matter what the professional situations are. Yet, she was refused a job she could have obtained in

You have raised some great points as to J.C. encounter of unlawful religious discrimination. As you said J.C. tried to compromise with his employer by packing or wearing his dreads in a neat and professional matter. But as a result his employer refused which resulted in J.C. losing his job. I agree with your analysis that the company's actions toward J.C. is violation of Title VII. However I also believe that it is a violation of his first amendment right. As a citizen of this so called great land, we are allowed to practice our religion and face no form of discrimination. This case not only describes a violation against Title VII but also the first amendment

Under the ministerial exception of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, can a religiously affiliated organization, such as religious schools, discriminate based on religion when hiring employees, such as teachers, including those who deal with non-religious tasks, such as teaching a secular subject?

Mr. Vicks, with all due respect, the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed due to racial discrimination. As an organization, we are prohibited from making hiring decisions based on age; color; disability; genetic information; marital status; national origin; pregnancy; race; religion and sexual orientation (Mathis, 2017). Not to mention, if the applicant or employee can prove that they were denied employment or promotion based on their race, they can present a disparate treatment claim with EEOC, especially if he or she had the qualifications.

The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). Justice Scalia labeled Saint Mary’s Center v. Hicks case “pretext-plus” approach. Other courts, commentators, and analysts originally also classified the term pretext-plus. The approach of this case is similar to “pretext-only” approach from the case McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green of 1973 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). The employee must develop a discrimination case and accepted as correct and proved

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was designed to protect workers from job discrimination. These employees are known as “protected class.” Under the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 and 1991 provide for equal employment opportunity, in which everyone had the right to employment regardless of sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or religion. The purpose of the Equal Opportunity Act was to make sure employees gained and kept employment based solely on their ability to perform their job (Schermerhorn, J. & Bachrach, D. 2015, p. 295).

Title VII states that an employee cannot be treated differently because of sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When used as a defense, bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) allows an organization to hire and employ individuals on the basis of the qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. This paper will discuss the necessary steps employers must take in order to justify using sex as a discriminator when hiring employees and review some known cases where BFOQ was used as a defense.