Eeoc V. Mims Distributing Company, Inc. Essay

In this particular case, Mr. Maalick received very clear and convincing racial and religious discrimination from both his supervisor and from his co-workers. The employees of Treton blatantly violated the Civil Rights Act and the Equal. Employment. Opportunity Commission. These acts do not allow, under any circumstances, discrimination based on the idea of race, color, sex, religion or age (The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | National Archives, n.d.).

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Debra Nathan-Nenn, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her minor son, Grey Hoffman. The Amended Complaint alleges in general that Ms. Nathan-Nenn executed a written lease to rent a house from the insureds starting on June 1, 2013. The plaintiffs further allege that starting on the day the plaintiffs took possession of the house, the drain in the kitchen sink was not working and the insureds failed to correct this condition. The complaint continues to allege additional deficiencies in the rental property such as mold growth in one of the bedrooms and in various locations of the house due to excess moisture and failure to patch exterior openings, insufficient heating, holes in the exterior walls, an unfinished deck, insufficient weather sealants, vermin in the crawlspace, frozen pipes and lack of running water. The plaintiffs further allege that the insureds have failed to address and resolve the above issues. The most serious claim is that the mold present throughout the house caused the plaintiff and her minor son to become ill.

Over the last several decades, workplace issues have become an area of controversy for most employers. This is because the regulations surrounding what practices are considered to be discriminatory have increased dramatically. To enforce these issues, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) is playing a central role in making employers follow these provisions of the law. A recent example of this occurred, with the case EEOC v. HCS Medical Staffing Inc.

Around November 2008, Dillard’s engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Cary, North Carolina location in violation of the Age Discrimination of Employment Act when it terminated Virginia Keene, a 61 year old woman, from her position ("Dillard 's sued by EEOC for age discrimination", 2010). She was an Area Sales Manager and was in charge of the Children’s and Accessories Departments and oversaw the sales associates who worked in her two departments. While she worked at Dillard’s, her managers repeatedly made verbal remarks to the fact that she was much older than the other five Area

COUNSEL: For Plaintiff: Mona C. Engel, Esq., Law Offices of Robert F. Danzi, Westbury, New York.

Facts: This is a Title VII action alleging harassment based on national origin and religion. The facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Rafiq. On May 11, 2001, Mohommed Rafiq was hired as a car salesman. Rafiq was born in India and is a practicing Muslim. The alleged harassment began on September 11, 2001. When he arrived for work that afternoon, his co-workers were watching news coverage of the terrorist attacks and one of them asked him in a mocking way, "Where have you been?", as if to infer that he had participated in the attacks.

Honig vs. Doe is a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 20, 1988 (6-2) the California School Board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), (Steketee). After the school board suspended a student indefinitely for violent and disruptive behavior which was caused by his disability. Doe was a 17-year-old student who was taunted by his peers due to his physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits, (FreedomKentucky). Doe’s Individual Education Program (IEP) goal set was to improve his ability to relate to peers and control his impulses and anger. In November of 1980 Doe was overcome with anger and lashed out in an explosive manner where he choked a student with such force the student had abrasions on his neck, after the altercation he was being escorted to the principal’s office and during this process he also kicked out a school window in a moment of angry. Doe was suspended initially for 5 days the school board began the process of expulsion proceedings and informed the student’s family Doe would not be able to return to school until the proceedings were finalized. Doe qualified for special education services under the EAHCA and the suit was filed regarding “stay-put” act. The “stay-put” act allows children with disabilities to stay in their school environment while proceedings are under way unless teachers and the parents agree otherwise. Once the injunction was

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 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.

Mr. Polk and others ought to be permitted to abuse the prepping strategy on the premise of the religious decree on the sacredness of dreadlocks and have the chance to even now interface with the clients. With a specific end goal to symbolize his new religious way, Mr. Polk developed his dreadlocks. It would be viewed as an infringement of the title VII of the social liberties demonstration of 1964 if an organization separates a worker and neglects to suit his religious convictions. As per the case which included FedEx, the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer began an examination on the end of a few workers of the FedEx who had dreadlocks as a statement of their religious convictions. They achieved an understanding that FedEx should amend its approaches and consequently enable representatives to ask for an exception on the arrangements with respect to religious convictions. The organization needed to roll out a few improvements to its own prepping strategies and furthermore instruct the organization chiefs on the best way to deal with the solicitations on religious facilities from alternate workers. The administration ought to likewise be kept required on the organizations taking care of on the solicitations to suit the workers who may wear dreadlocks (In Garcia, In Young and In Pimentel, 2014).

Throughout the centuries there have been many groups pursuing equal rights for themselves. These groups feel that they are excluded from privileges others possess and are subject to injustices that others are not. These groups feel they deserve better and that their presence in the world is unequal to others’. In the United States a large percentage of women started to feel they warranted equal rights to men. Margaret Fuller was among the supporters of the movement and published ground-breaking article called “The Great Lawsuit.” In “The Great Lawsuit”, Margaret Fuller tries to stop the great inequalities between men and women by describing great marriages where the husband and wife are equal, by stating how society

In the case of Mr. Polk and others like him, if the reason for wearing dreadlocks is truly due to religious reasons, then they should be allowed. However, those choosing to wear dreadlocks or other hairstyles for fashionable purposes should have to abide by the grooming policy set forth by an organization. In order to avoid a discrimination lawsuit, employers have to be careful in the handling of these situations. Individuals are protected under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act which states that “employees and job applicants cannot be discriminated against due to race, gender, religion or other characteristics not related to job qualifications or performance” (Bethel University, 2013, p.61). FedEx’s grooming policy stated that the following

It is not my recommendation that ABC wait for the EEOC to perform investigation and file suit against the company. In recent history these proceedings become public affairs and will reflect poorly on ABC and its management regardless of the court’s ruling. ABC’s management should begin mediation with David to prevent suit being filed with the goal of settlement outside of court with ABC’s remedial options including:

On September 15th, the 11th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a claim in 2014 which allowed employers to discriminate against black hairstyles with emphasis on dread locks. In 2010 a black woman named Chasity Jones was denied employment at a company in Mobile, Alabama because of her dread locks she was approached by a human resource agent and it was explained to her that her chances of being hired at the company would increase if she was to change her hairstyle and once Mrs. Jones reused to abide by the company standards her name was removed from the hiring process. After Mrs. Jones was disqualified from the hiring process due to her hair style she went to court in 2013 but lost the court ruling because the judge stated a hairstyle is a