Case Analysis Of Ritter V. Auntie Ruth 's Furry Friends

Decent Essays

Case Law Analysis Case Summary
In a perfect world, there would be no need for laws protecting people from employment discrimination; however, in this often-unjust world, discrimination continues. Hence, federal and state protections exist for certain groups of people sharing common characteristics. Some of these protected classes are race, religion or creed, gender, and disability (EEOC, 2015). In the legal case of Ritter v. Auntie Ruth’s Furry Friends (ARFF), Ritter claimed she became the target of age discrimination after the business was sold to two people under the age of thrty. The following is an overview of the case that highlights how ignorance of or willful disregard of the rights of others can be a costly mistake. While laws are unlikely to change the minds of those who seek to discriminate, those breaking the law must be held accountable.
Case Summary
In the above referenced case, Ritter, the appellant, began her employment as the general manager at the boarding kennel approximately one year prior to the sale of the business. In 2012, the business changed ownership to Annie Haubenhofer and Mike McKinley. Upon taking ownership, they required all current employees to reapply for their jobs. AARF rehired all of the existing employees, including Ritter, subject to a 90-day probationary period. As general manager, Ritter informed Haubenhofer that questions on the new application, such as age and year of high school

Get Access