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).
Title VII prohibits race discrimination; “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, condition, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
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.
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
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
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
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act was an amendment to title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it is illegal for an employer of 15 or more workers, to discriminate against a person because of pregnancy, childbirth, or pregnancy-related conditions. This means
According to the website Oyez ,The argument that pregnant workers like “most favored nation” status, was considered by the court. The court held that Congress did not mean to create that status for pregnant employees and also rejected United Parcel Service view that the PDA (Pregnancy Discrimination Act) simply describes gender discrimination to include pregnancy discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act would fail to carry out one of its main purposes: to overturn precedent that rejected a Title VII challenge to a company plan that provided non-occupational sickness and accident benefits to all employees, but no disability-benefits payments for pregnancy-caused absences, stated by the
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.
Being a member of a protected group was established by Title VII by the Supreme Court including the protection for both male and females. All individuals regardless of gender are protected by Title VII. An individual must prove that they did not welcome the behavior or gestures which were displayed in a sexual nature. The plaintiff would need to prove that any harassment they endured was initiated because of the individuals gender whether it be male or female. An individual does not have to endure situations which cause their work environment to become hostile because of sufficiently severe or pervasive behavior by another individual.
First, the ex-employee NEVER requested a reasonable accommodation. Title VII requires a person to make said request without the request creating an undue hardship to the company. An employee must inform the company of the need for an accommodation based on a disaccord between the person’s religious belief or practices and their work duties. The relevance is that the law requires the individual to request an accommodation. According to the information cited, this individual made no such request.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (law.cornell.edu, 2006)