Discrimination Lawsuit Against Walgreens Co

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 lawsuit that I have chosen is about a company not hiring someone because of their race. Tyeastia

I spoke to the store manager, and according to the manager, this employee opened/ created a lawsuit against the Walgreens. According to the manager, there was an agreement for settlement between the employee and employee relationship lawyer. Once the settlement passed it was agreed that they employee would leave the company.

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.

Charges of workplace discrimination is said to be at an all time high. During the 2015 fiscal year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity released information that claims there were more than 89,000 charges filed for workplace discrimination. One of the top ten charges is said to be retaliation, which had an estimate 39,757 cases in 2015, which is 44.5 percent of all charges filed. Retaliation is said to be in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, For the purpose of this research paper I will provide the understanding of both Acts, while also taking a case that deals with to provide the basis of the case, the findings, and the outcome of the charges.

In the case WALGREENSs Co v. ABIGAIL E. HINCHY , Hinchy an Indiana woman sued Walgreen Co., a national pharmacy chain, for violating her rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This case is a violation of privacy, which makes it a privacy tort. “The right of privacy is defined as an individual's legal right, not explicitly provided in the United States Constitution, to be left alone and live life free from unwarranted publicity”(Study.com). The case revolves around the release of her personal prescription information to her ex-boyfriend, who was involved with one of Walgreen’s pharmacists at the time.

On February the 25th ,2015, the supreme court remanded the EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc case, as the Supreme Court of the United States website states it. In fact, the case opposed the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of Samantha Elauf, against a company named Abercrombie and Fitch Stores. In fact, Mrs. Elauf was denied a job due to religious practices as the A&F company considered that her look goes against the company policies.

Jacqueline Cote, and her wife Diana Smithson were employees for Walmart for about 15 years. However, Cote’s sued (for cost of caring) when Smithson developed ovarian cancer. Walmart denied the health insurance policy to cover both of them as soon as both of them left (Cote’s had to take care of Smithson). Lydia DePillis, a reporter who writes for Washington Post, stated. “Last week, a notice seeking others affected by Walmart's actions went out to the 1,200 current and former employees who enrolled a same-sex spouse in the retailer's health plan after Jan. 1, 2014. The class action argues that, because the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, they should have been receiving benefits even before the Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act” (1). DePillis insists that just because someone is gay, they should not be discriminated. African Americans are too entitled to their have rights which protect them, and should set all that aside to work in an equal environment, after all workplaces is one of many where people should feel the same as everyone

Cheryl Perich was an employer of the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School and filled an employment discrimination suit for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cheryl became sick and left work to be on disability, but then was not able to return to her position and allegedly urged to resign. When she refused resignation, her employer Hosanna fired her. The EEOC then filed a discrimination suit against Hosanna-Tabor, which was dismissed. Upon the appeal by Perich and the EEOC, courts ruled that Perich was not a ministerial employee and the case must be retried on the merit of the discrimination claims. In this case, 10-553, the appeal was reversed and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hosanna-Tabor’s actions were lawful.

Race and color discrimination. Color discrimination, different treatment due to race (or appearance of skin), and uniform and grooming codes. Can't sue people in general, only with regard to employment context and Title VII.

As mentioned earlier the case involves workers with disabilities working for Walgreens. The case begins with mentioning that Walgreens is one of the nation’s largest drugstore retailer

The District Court erred in granting summary judgment for Friendly Grocers. The plain language of the ADA mandates reasonable accommodation requires reassignment to a vacant position. Under the 42 U.S.C § 12112(a), employers have duty to not discriminate against any individuals with a disability. (cite) The statute takes one step further by stating that the employers have duty to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee which includes reassignment of the employee to a vacant position for which the disabled is qualified.(cite)

The title of the case selected is “Yesterday’s Pub & Grille Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination”. The case was reported in the EEOC press release section on February 11th, 2016. According to the press release, Sappyann, Inc., which operates Yesterday’s Pub & Grill restaurant violated federal law by discriminating against an employee (“Yesterday’s Pub,” 2016). The restaurant refused to hire him due to his HIV positive status. As a result, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged a lawsuit against the company.

Kaiser, chose to train in-house workers using 50% of the trainees who were black until the percentage of black skilled craft workers in the plant approximated the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. The hiring process caused an issue among the other skilled workers when they noticed that six blacks hired and only five whites hired. After that, respondent Weber, one of those white production workers, instituted this class action in Federal District Court. Alleging because the affirmative action program had resulted in junior black employees '

In the case of Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (Dukes), the court found that there was a lack of significant proof that Wal-Mart had a general policy of discrimination (Schipani,