Dianne Rawlinson: Correctional Counselor

In Jackson v. Birmingham Board Of Education, Coach Jackson filed a lawsuit claiming the school’s athletic program was discriminating against the team based on their sex and was being retaliated against, which falls in violation of Title IX (Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 2005). After finding out funding and access to equipment were not equal, a girls’ basketball coach spoke with supervisors. The complaint was unsuccessful and he received poor work evaluations as a result and was eventually removed from the coaching position. The lawsuit was dismissed on the premise that Title IX does not include claims of retaliation. This has created confusion with court cases in regards to what constitutes as retaliation in making an accusation of discrimination. Since the development of Title IX, another civil action that has been created to protect citizens from having their rights violated is Section 1983 (42 USC 1983). Section 1983 covers claims in conjunction with Title IX. Section 1983 enforces Constitutional rights and reiterates the prohibition of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex and religion (42 USC

Congress amended Title VII in 1978 by passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and made it clear that discrimination based on pregnancy is unlawful sex discrimination. This legislation reversed the Supreme Court's Gilbert decision in 1976. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which overruled several Supreme Court decisions rendered in the 1980s that had made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in their employment discrimination suits and to recover fees and costs when they won their lawsuits (www.eeoc.gov). The amendment stated that parties can request jury trials and those successful plaintiffs can recover compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases. This amendment has

Many of us have worked in job environment that were less than ideal and probably thought about quitting our jobs on a daily basis. Do you ever wonder what it was like before the laws were written and implemented that prevented your boss from discriminating against you and other coworkers? Well I can without a doubt say that I would not have want a job before the 1964 Congress enacted the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

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

In order words, the restrictions were a discrimination against women. However, the case questioned women’s possibilities to fulfill the job in an all male security prison. The Court decided that bona fide occupational qualifications were valid in this case. Thus, the Court concluded that Dianne Rawlinson would be more vulnerable as a female prison guard to male sexual attacks in contrast to the male prison guards. In other words, it was for safety reasons. The case was the first one to use the concept of bona fide occupational qualifications. The holding of the Court stated that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is not allowed for an employer to set both weight and height restrictions that will have an effect on one specific gender. The Supreme Court found that the restrictions did violate Title VII, due to the restrictions would prohibit less than 1 percent of men, while it would exclude around 41 percent of the female population in

In February of 1992, in the Supreme Court further (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools) held that victims might be awarded monetary damages in sex discrimination cases. The case involved a high school woman who said she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher. She filed for damages in Federal District Court, which dismissed the complaint, saying Title IX does not authorize an award of damages. The Court of Appeals agreed. But the U.S. Supreme Court held that compensatory and punitive damages

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, sex, religion, and national origin” (Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt, 2012, p. 24). This law also includes discrimination due to sexual orientation. This was not addressed in the original law, but sexual orientation cases have been won under this law. Such is the case of, Heller v Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002) (Joslin, n.d.). This lawsuit was due to a lesbian 's employer used derogatory comments, toward her, in which the court ruled in her favor. Kate 's allegation of discrimination if proved, can be filed with the company 's Human Resource department. If that does not resolve the issue, she can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The case here at hand was argued October 5th of 1964. The issue was one that dealt with Ollie’s Barbecue and its owner Ollie McClung in Alabama and the refusal of black patrons coming inside to dine-in. Ollie’s only allowed take out to black customers, even though the majority of employees were black. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was handed down in July, Congress along with Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach were arguing that a clear violation of Title II of the Act was being committed by McClung. This case was close in distinction and timing of the Heart of Atlanta Motel case brought before the Supreme Court, as they were argued at the same time. “Section 201 (a) of Title II commands that all persons shall be entitled to

In James McFadden vs. Airline company, James, a transsexual person, told his employer that he would be dressing as a woman in preparation to his “surgical sex reassignment”. James was fired from his job because he refused to dress and act as a man. In this case the legal statute that could apply would be the sex discrimination against James. The court should look at what happen, James told his employer about the sex change and employer told him he had to keep dressing as a man, he refused and was fired. The judge should rule in favor of the Airline Company because the employer told James he couldn’t do that, and it is understandable because of airport security. He was also no discriminated because he was still a man, and he said he was treated differently from the other women employed.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from being discriminated against due to who they are and what they look like this includes skin color, religious preference, where they come from and sex of the person. Title VII was amended to include the protection of pregnant women.

Jennifer alleges that she was terminated because of her pregnancy. She neglects the fact that Greene’s discharged her because her position, junior executive secretary, is redundant to the company. It is transparently that Jennifer is a member of protected class and was dismissed. Yet Greene’s did not violate The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) under Title VII. According to Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), it is an unlawful employment practice if an employer discharges any individual because of such individual 's race,

According to the Legal Dictionary (2014), “The Wards Cove decision was severely criticized by Civil Rights leaders, who believed the Supreme Court had made disparate impact cases almost impossible to win” (p.1). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was in effect. This act proposed that employees must have proof in showing that the employer committed a disparate impact crime. No longer would it allow the victims to argue against the company based on their own views. At the same time the owner must show evidence that there is a crime committed based on these findings. Title VII along with the Civil Rights Act would dismiss any further rulings on this matter. The Supreme Court has adjusted some of the compensation methods for the disparate impact theory. It is against the law for an employer to allow different standards, conditions, or terms of the job to their workers. This

The need for the new law to be established began with the conflicting outcomes coming from the various levels of the court system. The courts disagreed on what constituted sex discrimination. Six different United States Courts of Appeals had ruled in favor of pregnant women saying that any employment act that would adversely affect a pregnant woman was sex discrimination as outlined by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Supporting this position was the view of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who also agreed that discrimination based on a pregnancy would be considered sex discrimination. However, the United States Supreme Court would change all of that with its ruling in two separate court

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Under Title VII sex discrimination is not unlawful if BFOQ can be proven as necessary for that position.