Essay on Discrimination Compliant

Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.

This case is about a group of women who were discriminated against based on their gender. The lawsuit was put into the hands of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) after a group of Latino women that worked for Rivera Vineyard, Inc. reported multiple complaints. Those involved included Rivera Vineyards Company employees that consist of Latino female workers, male workers, and male managers. Most of the Latino farm workers suffering victimization were females, there were also some males. These males were targeted because of their attempt to speak up on behalf of the harassed females.

On August 19, 2008, Mr. Contonius Gill filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC claiming race discrimination and retaliation for being discharged for complaining about racial harassment. On August 10, 2008 Mr. Gill filed an Employment Discrimination Complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor. On June 2011, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a single complaint alleging that Mr. Gill, plaintiff, was subjected to a racially hostile environment from May 2007 through June 2008, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The matter was filed against A.G. Widenhouse, defendant.

I was impressed with the oral argument of Vance V. Ball State University case. When I first listened to the oral argument I gained a clear understanding as to why petitioner Vance reason where for filing a lawsuit. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; make it unconstitutional for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC, n.d., para. 1). Due to the power that businesses needed to fire workers spontaneously, government and federal laws have been set up to guarantee that purposes behind end are defended and that separation does not assume a part in one's capacity to keep up their occupation (Szypszak,

The disparate treatment doctrine requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Three provisions required to prove disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. Proof of discriminatory motive is critical and may be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment. Proof may also be inferred from the falsity of the employer’s explanation for the treatment, (Walsh, 2010).

the employee will be informed in writing of the companys decision and notified of their right to appeal against that desicion if they are not satisfied with it.

At this point, Employee B has 180 days to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC may ask Employee B to settle through mediation and in the event that mediation cannot settle the claim, it is then the responsibility of the EEOC to investigate any claims made by employees, report findings and settle any charges. In some cases, the EEOC will file lawsuits to protect individual rights.

The EEOC carries out its work at headquarters and in 50 field offices throughout the United States. Individuals who believe they have been discriminated against in employment begin the processes by filing administrative charges. Individual Commissioners may also initiate charges that the law has been violated. Through the investigation of charges, if the EEOC determines there is "reasonable cause" to believe that discrimination has occurred, it must then seek to conciliate the

accepts discriminatory instructions from an employer and carries them out, both parties are liable. An

Essentially, the case could go in light of the defendant. Despite the fact that Ms. Singleton did not prove that the offending conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. Generally, we determine whether a work environment is sufficiently hostile by looking at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere insulting statement, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee 's work performance. It is established that simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment. Title VII is not intended to serve as a workplace civility code.

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

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ensures that people are not discriminated against in the work place for things such as their race, gender, disability, age, religion, or color. EEOC also protect people that have filed a complaint. You cannot be terminated because you have filed a complaint or a lawsuit (“About the EEOC:Overview, n.d.). Www.eeoc.gov provides information for any situation pertaining to employment. Their services may be needed because of being fired, denied employment, or denial of a promotion. Whatever the need, EEOC have laws to protect those in the labor force.

After a charge is rejected, both parties will receive a notice stating this. This is allowing the charging employee a 90 day time limit, to decide if they which to file a lawsuit against the employer (www.eeoc.gov, 2003).

Everyone agrees that workplace discrimination has no place in the modern business world. But not everyone understands the laws that protect employees against discrimination. In this case, what you don’t know can hurt you, especially if an aggrieved employee files a discrimination claim.

Each society establishes its standards in order to work properly. Those expectations define on how its members should and not behave, and how to relate to one another. Society’s guidelines and standards are referred as norms. Norms vary among different societies and even groups within societies may vary. Heslin indicates, “…values are the standards by which people define what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly”(2015, pg.49). Accordingly to their values, different settings and countries call for different norms. In the manner in which we are to behave in a theatre contrasts our behavior at a party versus the way we are expected to act a church. Based on the society’s priorities, some norms are unwaveringly enforced whereas lenient with