Eeoc's Argument

CASE 3: Jennifer Erickson sued her employer, Bartell Drug Company, contending that its decision not to cover prescription contraceptives under its employee prescription drug plan constituted sex discrimination. Bartell argued that its decision was not sex discrimination because contraceptives were preventive, were voluntary, and did not treat an illness.

The challenge they face is that stakeholders may not agree with borderline ethical/legal conduct and not invest in the company. This can lead to image loss and financial downfalls and undermine the entire company.

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,

This case law was where Dianne Rawlinson was attempting to seek employment as a correctional officer with the Alabama board of correction. Her position was officially called in Alabama a “Correctional Counselor.” Alabama Board of Corrections rejected the application form Dianne Rawlinson. She immediately filed a class action law suit under the Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964. Because of her sex was the primary dispute that they denied her employment which was a violation of federal law.

The religious discrimination lawsuits filed in federal court with the EEOC indicate that there were employees who believed their religious rights were not being protected. For example, Omari v. Waste Gas Fabricating Co. was a 2005 9/11 backlash case. Omari, a Muslim from Algeria, filed a claim with the EEOC for discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. Omari claimed that he was repeatedly called “Osama, terrorist, cave dweller, camel driver,” and was accused of making bombs and questioned as to whether or not he knew how to drive a plane into a building. Omari rejected the accusations and tried to explain that he was not an Arab, but the comments did

The EEOC also administers and enforces the civil rights laws. The EEOC provides programs to prevent discrimination before it begins through programs such as education and outreach programs. They have the responsibility to provide guidance in all aspects of federal government equal employment opportunity program by assuring the compliance with EEOC regulations and providing. The role of the investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the claims and then make a verdict. If there was a positive discrimination case has happened, the EEOC will try to settle the charge, if not the EEO has the authority to file a lawsuit to defend the rights of individuals and the welfare of the public. If there is no case of discrimination, there will not be

Ante, at 356, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 394 (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, his regression analyses showed there were disparities within stores. The majority's contention to the contrary reflects only an arcane disagreement about statistical method--which the District Court resolved in the plaintiffs' favor. 222 F.R.D. 137, 157 (ND Cal. 2004). Appellate review is no occasion to disturb a trial court's handling of factual disputes of this order.Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982). Ante, at 352-355, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 391-392. That case has little relevance to the question before the Court today. The lead plaintiff in Falcon alleged discrimination evidenced by the company's failure to promote him and other Mexican-American employees and failure to hire Mexican-American applicants. There were “no common questions of law or fact” between the claims of the lead plaintiff and the applicant class. 457 U.S., at 162, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (Burger, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added). The plaintiff-employee alleged that the defendant-employer had discriminated against him intentionally. The applicant class claims, by

The Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's is only one of many lawsuits that end up in the person getting a big paycheck for something that the company had no control over. Many instances are of people purposefully falling

Many companies have ethical decisions that need to be and sometimes those decisions can affect many individuals or just a few. Making ethical decisions may be placed solely on one person’s shoulders or it may be a decision that multiple individuals must be involved in. There are several ethical issues in the Richardson Drilling case that should be considered. For instance, bribery, purchasing substandard parts with lack of disclosure that causes injuries, and revealing sensitive information. One potential ethical concern that could arise has to do with ongoing health insurance and the employer’s responsibility.

The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). Justice Scalia labeled Saint Mary’s Center v. Hicks case “pretext-plus” approach. Other courts, commentators, and analysts originally also classified the term pretext-plus. The approach of this case is similar to “pretext-only” approach from the case McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green of 1973 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). The employee must develop a discrimination case and accepted as correct and proved

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, otherwise known as the EEOC, is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, age if 40 or older, disability or genetic information. This also protects individuals who have previously filed a complaint or charge related to discrimination or because of personal involvement in an investigation or lawsuit concerning employment discrimination. This coverage includes employers with 15 employees, but that number changes to 20 employees in age discrimination cases as well as labor unions and employment agencies. The laws concerning EEOC apply to all types of situations; hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages and benefits.

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.

The purpose of this case study is to justify the fairness of the court settlement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Burlington Northern Railroad & Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). Burlington Northern did willingly and knowingly breach employee personal privacy, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) in conducting unauthorized genetic blood testing on unknowing employees. The court mandate that they pay $2.2 million to 36 employees is fair and just. To illustrate the fairness of the settlement, I will show the utilitarian perspective from

In the case of Blanton v Newton Associates, Inc., Blanton’s was clearly harassed. In cases such as this, the employer (Newton) would find their best defense in the cases of Burlington Industustries, Inc. v Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), and Faragher v City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998).

Ultimately, the employee in a discrimination lawsuit has the burden of proof. This means the employee must present enough evidence to convince the judge or jury that the employer discriminated. The employer doesn't have to prove that it did not discriminate; it only has to present some evidence of a legitimate motive. Of course, employers don't want to lose lawsuits, and typically present as much evidence as they can that their decisions were legitimate and legal. From a legal perspective, however, it's up to the employee to prove that the employer violated Title VII. EEOC Discrimination.