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.
After reviewing the data it is apparent the promotional rate of women in managerial positions when compared to the men is disproportional to the size of the population. This shows disparate treatment, the company hires women, but women do not promote at the same pace as men. This shows strong evidence of discrimination and if not resolved will lead to a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
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.
The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.
In a study, when recruiters were asked to choose a suitability applicant for employment in a hypothetical administrative assistant position. They ended up giving less employability rating to applicants with a disability compared to the one without disability. This clearly shows stereotyping in few work places. (Bricout, John C., and Kia J. Bentley.).
“Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Title I does not allow any private employers, local, and state governments, labor unions and employment agencies from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, firing, hiring, job training, advancement and other terms, privileges, and conditions of employment” (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
According to Gary Dessler, “employers with 15 or more workers are prohibited from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities with regard to applications, hiring, discharge, compensation, advancement, training, or other terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. It also says that employers must make ‘reasonable accommodations’ for physical or mental limitations unless doing so imposes an ‘undue hardship’ on the business.” It not only prohibits discrimination in employment but also outlaws most physical barriers in public accommodations, transportation, telecommunications, and government services.
Weber, 443 U.S. 193 the court reversed the appellate court affirm the district court finding of collectively bargained affirmative the plan of action violation of the title vii of Civil Rights Act 1964. The Judicial finding some craft exclusion to the rule Such as the following cases, United States v. Elevator Constructors, 538 F.2d 1012 (CA3 1976); Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts v. Altschuler, 490 F.2d 9 (CA1 1973); Southern Illinois Builders Assn. v. Ogilvie, 471 F.2d 680 (CA7 1972); Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pennsylvania v. Secretary of Labor, 442 F.2d 159 (CA3 1971); Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 407 F.2d 1047 (CA5 1969); Buckner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 339 F.Supp. 1108 (ND Ala. 1972), aff'd without opinion, 476 F.2d 1287 (CA5 1973). Also well as, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Challenge Ahead: Equal Opportunity in Referral Unions 58-94 (1976) (summarizing judicial findings of discrimination by craft unions); G. Myrdal, An American Dilemma 1079-1124 (1944); F. Marshall & V. Briggs, The Negro and Apprenticeship (1967); S. Spero & A. Harris, The Black Worker (1931); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Employment 97 (1961); State Advisory Committees, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 50 States Report 209 (1961); Marshall, The Negro in Southern Unions, in The Negro and the American Labor Movement 145 (J. Jacobson ed. 1968); App. 63,
Employers have legal obligations, when drawing up a job description. The law states that employers must not discriminate against a persons, age, race, sex, religion or disability.
People with disabilities have become an integral part of the workforce. The ADA forbids discrimination against people with disabilities when recruiting, hiring, training, and compensating employees (Sotoa & Kleiner, 2013). The ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental and establishes requirements for telecommunications relay services (activities (Stryker, R. (2013). Employers are not allowed to ask employees if they have a disability. The employers are not allowed to ask employees with disabilities to undergo a medical exam before an offer of employment unless all applicants are required to take the same exam (Kaye, Jans, & Jones,
There are certain instances where individuals need to have certain characteristics in order to perform a job duty successfully. A great example of these qualifications would be a movie company looking for someone of a specific race to play a specific part in a movie. Some jobs also require a certain amount of stamina and physical strength, such as lifting heavy boxes all day. It would be silly for a company to hire a 65 year old frail person for this job since they obviously would not be able to complete their daily duties in a timely or efficient manner. “To protect an employer from liability for discrimination, BFOQs must be a matter of business necessity and not mere pretext” (Lily,
For over two hundred years, white males have been the most powerful group in the United States. Through economic exclusions, enforced by laws and reinforced by deep cultural attitudes, there has existed, in effect, a preferential hiring program for white males. In light of that historical reality and the dynamics that remain in our culture, evaluate the contemporary strategy of affirmative action for minorities to bring about more fairness in hiring and promotion practices. Draw heavily from the assigned readings and then explain and defend your arguments concerning affirmative action and "reverse discrimination."
According to the Office of Disability Employment Office, “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a landmark federal law that protects the rights of people with disabilities by eliminating barriers to their participation in many aspects of living and working in America. In particular, the ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against people with disabilities in the full range of employment-related activities, from recruitment to advancement, to pay and benefits”(“ODEP”, para. 1). With this being said, it is important to remember the main focus for this Act is that it to allow protection for
& Martinez, 2003). The Supreme Court ruled that the University of California was wrong in the way they approached a special admissions program that was open only to minority applicants (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). The ruling argued that the special admissions program violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. stated in his opinion on the Bakke case that quotas “would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity” (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003, p. 141). Justice Powell, Jr. also wrote that race is only one part of many factors that an institution can consider in truly achieving a heterogeneous student population (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). By siding with Bakke in this case, the Supreme Court essentially outlawed the use of racial quotas in admissions processes in higher education, yet universities took this as it is okay to use race as a selective factor as long as there are no quotas (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003).