Case Study : Who Sued American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. Essay

Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the only substantive protection from discrimination for United States citizens was the 14th Amendment, which states, “equal protection of the laws.” Seminal cases under this law include, Brown v. Board of Education, and more recently, Bush v. Gore (Cornell University Law School, 2016). Despite the 14th Amendment, discrimination based on race, sex, and age went uncontested as it was often difficult to prove and no specific protections existed. Hence, as part of the Civil Rights Act, the creation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) allowed federal law to establish protected classes (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2016). As a person who falls under the protected class of age, this paper focuses on age discrimination and the potential ethical issues for employers involving this protected class. While most employers respect and follow employment laws, age discrimination is more common than many realize and can be devastating for the individual and financially problematic for the employer.

The Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County Case is a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer against Palm Beach County claiming an infringement of the age discrimination in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Zimpfer has worked for the county's worker relations area for approximately 16 years i.e. since he was 52 years. Mr. Zimpfer applied for the position of employee relations manager as a vacancy in this position was advertised by the county. Following considerations and evaluation of all applications, Mr. Brad Merriman, aged 33 years was chosen by the county to fill the vacancy. As a result, Mr. Zimpfer filed a lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which he hired an attorney, Ms. Lynn Szymoniak to follow his case. In her pursuit of the case, Szymoniak attempted to obtain a settlement with the legal representatives of Palm Beach County while equipped with a complimentary report from Dr. Mary Josephs, an I/O psychologist.

I definitely believe that the plaintiff has a case based on the presented facts in the article. I think the screening guidelines that the defendant was using created a bias against older individuals. In addition, I think anytime who write on a piece paper “Targeted Candidate” and “Stay Away From” you clearly are creating bias in a process, and in this case, age was affected.

As described on Facts About Age Discrimination (2008), the ADEA provides protection against age discrimination for both applicants and employees during the hiring and employment termination process. For employees the ADEA protects against age being a factor in opportunities for promotion, assignment of benefits and selection for layoffs. With few exceptions the ADEA prohibits employers from including age as a criterion when advertising or posting notice for available jobs. The ADEA explicitly protects “whistleblowers” against retaliation as a result of filing an age discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by intentionally discriminating against him under both disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses and whether the TVA appeal to the District Court erred in each of these analyses could be legally supported to reverse their decision FindLaw, 2011).

The Hartford NLRB office filed a complaint of unlawful dismissal of Mrs. Dawnmarie stating that the party was involved in protected concerted activity on Facebook at the time when she criticized her senior. In addition, NLRB identified several unlawful provisions within the company’s manual of conduct. However, before hearing, the company opted for an out of court settlement with Mrs. Dawnmarie besides revising their unlawful provisions in their handbook.

The Hartford NLRB office filed a complaint of unlawful dismissal of Mrs. Dawn stating that the party was involved in protected concerted activity on Facebook at the time when she criticized her senior. In addition, NLRB identified several unlawful provisions within the company’s manual of conduct. However, before hearing, the company opted for an out of court settlement with Mrs. Dawn besides revising their unlawful provisions in their handbook.

R.L. Johnson accuses Goodyear of discrimination on him and other r black employees at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Houston, Texas. Johnson sought transfer within the company and denied that transfer due to certain requirements. Mr. Johnson felt as though some of the requirement in placed for the transfer was implementing to those of the black race. Reason being is that Mr. Johnson and other black were hired under the labor department. If any hire that was hired by the labor department they had to meet certain qualifications to be considered for that transfer. The qualifications were above the requirement for those hired under the labor department. The courts concluded that the qualification needs to transfer from 1957 and July 2, 1965, were victims of proscribed conduct by Goodyear. However, Mr. Johnson was not hired in those years, he was hired in 1944. The court concluded that Goodyear did not discriminate against him but possible others. Goodyear since then has made changes to their transfer policies and tries to implement fair qualifications.

Davis, the student, who suffered from a severe hearing disability, applied to the nursing program at a local community college. The admissions committee denied her application after determining that, because of her disability, she would not be able to participate in their nursing program safely. As a result, the student filed a Section 504 complaint against the institution, arguing the school had discriminated against her because of her hearing disability. The court found that the institution’s academic policies were reasonable and appropriate. Moreover, they stated Section 504 did not require an institution or program to lower its admissions criteria or remove physical qualifications to accommodate individuals with disabilities. While an individual may be otherwise qualified, if she or he does not have the physical capability to perform the required tasks of the program, the institution is under no obligation to admit the

In writing this case analysis, it will cover the impact of the McKennon V. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. Supreme Court of the United States decision in any legal dispute regulated by Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and others by-law that covers the abolition of judgment in the place of work, the involvement to profit calculation technique in this type of legal suit, as well as impact in the workplace atmosphere. The Court detained that McKennon recognized that the establishment is responsible for its inequitable activities even where it consequently determines confirmation that would have led to the contrary action on legal and appropriate grounds. Not to mention, enclosed in this paper is a brief summary of the case from District Court through the Supreme Court ruling, comparing and contrasting the rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court and the District Court, and analyzing the reasoning used by the court to overturn the ruling issued by the district court. I will also, describe the pertinent variables of the analyses used by the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as state my recommendation as it refers to age discrimination.

This paper will outline a complaint process and illustrate the civil litigation that could follow if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, through mediation and arbitration cannot resolve a charge. The complaint is based on a scenario of an employee, named John. John works for a private sector business and he wishes to lodge a complaint of discrimination against the company he works for. This paper will explain the steps that are taken, from the beginning with the (EEOC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The paper will continue explaining the process by illustrating the civil litigation steps from the state level to the highest level of the United States Supreme Courts.

Recently, American Express lost an antitrust suit when its rules were found to be anticompetitive because of not allowing merchants to promote other cards or offer certain discounts. Amex has charged the merchants higher fees than VISA and MasterCard. These fees are used to fund its rewards program as well as to provide the customers with other perks. In this regard Amex has contractual agreements with the merchants which prohibit them from steering the customers to the other cards (Sidel, 2015). As a judge ruled, these rules put an unlawful restraint on trade. Back in 2010, the Department of Justice had filed a lawsuit against the credit card company alleging that its merchant rules inhibit competition and raise the prices

The ADEA is administered by the EEOC, and similar in most respects to the Civil Rights Act. Both disparate treatment and disparate impact charges are possible. The Act protects workers 40 years of age and older. A 45-year-old who applies for a job and is rejected in favor of a younger worker can claim disparate treatment. The employer will then have to show that the younger worker was better qualified or provide some nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. An employer could argue that it paid a newly hired younger worker more than an older current employee because this was necessary to attract the younger worker to the job. In disparate impact cases, employees must show that the entire protected group (workers 40 and older) is affected by the employer’s practice and not just some part of the protected group (workers over 60, for example) (Player, 14).

Hiding or divulging information: Goldman bet against their clients several times. They knew material information on certain investment; however, they never communicated that to their clients because they were making money off them.

In the case of American Express v Square Inc, the issue is whether American Express committed any wrongdoing in their business deal with Visa. Jack Dorsey of Square Inc. is filing claims of Tortious Interference with his Contract as well as Tortious Interference with a Prospective Advantage and Defamation.