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

Bent, J.R., (2011). The telltale sign of discrimination: probabilities, information asymmetries, and the systematic disparate treatment theory, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2011, Volume 44, Issue 4, p. 797

Employers that base employment decisions, including hiring and promotion, on protected class characteristics are engaging in disparate treatment. When they do so overtly and argue that it is necessary to limit a particular type of employment to people with specific protected class characteristics, this type of disparate treatment is termed a facially discriminator policy or practice. An important, but limited, defense is available to employers that adopt facially discriminatory requirement is legal. If an employer can show that a particular protected class characteristic is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job in question, the facially discriminatory requirement is legal. According to the Title VII of the Civil Right Act,

The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.

This law protects many people from discrimination and it means that people should not be at a disadvantage or mistreated at work or in society just because of their age, sex, sexuality, religion or belief, race, disability or any other things which can also be known as ‘protected characteristics’.

Discrimination against race, gender, religion, or other social characteristics is occurring in all parts of the United States almost every day. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of extreme case of discrimination, which has evoked controversy and in worse cases, violence. To discourage any more of adverse discernment towards certain individuals, the Federal government has imposed legislation called affirmative action. According to At Issue: Affirmative Action, “Affirmative action is designed to promote access to opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as women and minorities“ (At Issue). This law is necessary in today’s society in order to maintain equality and

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

Through the years, America has made an overall improvement in eliminating discrimination, inequality and slavery and focusing more on inclusion, equal rights, and equal opportunity. Despite a considerable improvement, there are corporations and individuals that often revert to archaic means of treating employees, creating hostile environments. Consequently, different advocacy groups and laws still remain in effect and continue to evolve to protect the citizens and non-citizens of the USA.

It is without a doubt that discrimination in this country has existed since its early stages. However, to this day after many movements and eras to try and eliminate it all together, it remains. And in this class, we seek to understand why. For these last couple of weeks, we discussed the 14th amendment and more specifically referenced its equal protection clause which vows to protect the fundamental rights of “all” citizens of the United States. Because of this state and federal governments attempt to create neutral laws that will apply fairly to all citizens in the United States. Which seems to be the best thing they can try and do nonetheless if a bill is said to be neutral, but has an unequal influence on a particular group of people problems

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal Law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the grounds of sex, race, color, national origin and religion (www.aauw.org). Thus far in our lectures we have discussed the strategies used by various minority groups who have been discriminated against in violation of Title VII. There has been land mark decisions made from the hard fought fights by, African Americans, Women, Mexicans and Jewish alike. Their challenges of non-compliance and enforcement of Title VII brought successes that didn’t come without sacrifice, division and in some cases physical harm.

In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.

The American population is aging as health care improves, the older generation is living longer and are still working or just getting into the workplace. One of the biggest issues that these older individuals face is age discrimination within the workplace. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967 forbids employment discrimination on the basis of age. Through a detailed explanation and history of the law, this paper will examine how ADEA affects the professionals in the workplace, human resources, managers, and employers in the workplace. It will further examine how the employee is affected by ADEA. This includes what their rights are and how they can make a complaint. Lastly, a legal case will be examined and evaluated so

Oppression and discrimination has plagued our society since early times. As a collective society one would think that over time oppression and discrimination would turn into acceptance and equality. Conversely, our society has taken sluggish steps towards diversity, acceptance and equality. Our society is focused on labeling people and putting them into limiting boxes. Oppression occurs across various groups of people based on gender, sex, race, religion, and disability. Members of these diverse groups are discriminated among work places, schools, and other places. Work places and schools promote diversity and non-discrimination, however little seems to be practiced. Oppression across generation leaves damaging consequences hindering society in the growth towards a more accepting environment.

The Civil Rights act of 1964 along with Title VII gives employees the option to sue business owners based on color, race, sexual orientation, and religion. This act, rules on the fact, that individuals can take action if a discrimination or harassment issues happens at the employer’s workplace. It expands Civil Rights statues to provide more protection against people who are victimized due to discrimination. It sets the guidelines for job related issues due to disparate impact or treatment issues. However, this act does not assure that everyone who faces discrimination will be employed because frankly he is a minority. If it is felt that there is a possibility of

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

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.