Filing A Timely Charge Is An Exception Under Administrative Requirements

     If an employee alleges discrimination in the workplace, they may file a complaint with the EEOC. As the claims process furthers, the EEOC will move forward and file suit in federal court if reasonable cause is shown and no conciliation is made between the employer and employee. If no reasonable cause is shown, the EEOC will send the employee a right to sue letter. In alleging discrimination, it is important for both parties to be aware of the theories by which a lawsuit may be brought. A discrimination lawsuit must fit under disparate treatment or disparate impact in order to be recognized under Title VII.

From a reasonable person perspective, Maalick encountered discriminatory ridicule and insults on multiple occasions from multiple people. With cumulative instances of harassment, the Chenworth office was a hostile work environment. Therefore, the compilation of illegal behaviors may entitle Maalick to a Title VII lawsuit, as long as this lawsuit is filed with 180 days (Hersch & Shinall,

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Discrimination complaints are subject to strict time limits and must be within 180 days of the offense unless the offense is also under coverage by state or local anti-discrimination laws. However, only state laws have the capacity to extend the time of filing limit to 300 days. If the charges fall within the scope of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the time limitations do not apply, but because claims also fall under Title VII sex discrimination, most claimants are under advisement to file charges under both laws with observance to the strict time limits of each. Mediation is another step in the complaint

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.

The EEOC carries out its work at headquarters and in 50 field offices throughout the United States. Individuals who believe they have been discriminated against in employment begin the processes by filing administrative charges. Individual Commissioners may also initiate charges that the law has been violated. Through the investigation of charges, if the EEOC determines there is "reasonable cause" to believe that discrimination has occurred, it must then seek to conciliate the

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.

The disparate treatment doctrine requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Three provisions required to prove disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. Proof of discriminatory motive is critical and may be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment. Proof may also be inferred from the falsity of the employer’s explanation for the treatment, (Walsh, 2010).

On August 19, 2008, Mr. Contonius Gill filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC claiming race discrimination and retaliation for being discharged for complaining about racial harassment. On August 10, 2008 Mr. Gill filed an Employment Discrimination Complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor. On June 2011, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a single complaint alleging that Mr. Gill, plaintiff, was subjected to a racially hostile environment from May 2007 through June 2008, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The matter was filed against A.G. Widenhouse, defendant.

the retaliation is for filing the agency complaint itself.” 245 F.3d at 6. Similar to Clockedile, where retaliation consisted of relocation pending investigation, the retaliation in Plaintiff’s case also happened during the EEOC investigation. Id. at 2-3. Pl.’s Compl, ¶25-26, Jan 11 2016. Additionally, Plaintiff’s case is even more compelling, as the retaliation consisted of actual termination, and the court in Clockedile considered relocation to a worse place enough to meet the standard. Id. While this case was decided just a little before Morgan, the First Circuit upheld the same standard years after Morgan in Franceschi by ruling that “a claim of retaliation for filing an administrative charge with the EEOC is one of the narrow exceptions to the normal rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies” and may be “bootstrapped” to the charge/s filed prior. 514 F.3d at 86-87. The plaintiff in Franceschi did not exhaust their administrative remedies on the first charge as they did not wait to receive the right-to-sue letter before suing; however, the Plaintiff meets the standard as they sued for retaliation after exhausting their remedy by receiving the right-to-sue letter on the charge filed. Id. at 86-87; Pl.’s Compl, 5-8, Jan 11,

Derrick L. Kincade, a former software implementation consultant for PROS, Inc. ("PROS"), claims the company violated chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code by (1) withdrawing an alleged promotion he had received based on his race (African American); (2) creating a hostile work environment based on two racially offensive notes he anonymously received at work; (3) retaliating against him for having filed an EEOC charge of discrimination by not allowing him to continue to work from home and by requiring a doctor's note for an absence; and (4) after securing other employment and giving two weeks' notice of resignation, by constructively discharging him. PROS is entitled to summary judgment on these claims under Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 166a(c) and 166a(i)

It was not fair of the Chief to release Dildine from duty with a lack of sufficient legal proof of his intent on being racist. In the book it says that there must be proper burden of proof and intent shown of unlawful discrimination. (Human Resource pg. 76) In this case the Police Chief said he released Dildine from his position because “any arrest could be challenged as racially motivated.” The head of the station had valid reasons for releasing him; however, Dildine did not do anything illegal. Under the EEOC, there is a strict nonretaliatory practice of employers punishing employees who exercise their legal rights (e.g. beliefs, freedom of speech). (Human Resource 76-77) Dildine’s actions were unethical and it definitely offended many people, but he did not cause harm to any of the protected groups. Therefore, without the proof of intent to be racist he has not displayed the illegal act of disparate

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

The charging employee has the right to pursue their grievance in civil litigation, but only after finishing the whole administrative procedure through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission office. The processes of the civil litigation lawsuit are familiar to the prior claim processes that the charging employee experienced with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Nonetheless, there are a few steps that are different. With civil litigation, counseling of the charging employee is not needed. The employer or the defendant will be given a copy of the complaint as well as the summons of the lawsuit pending. These documents are distributed to the employer by a representative from the Sheriff's division. A ruling can be delivered a judge if the company neglects to send a reply to the complaint and summons. The progression moves forward with "discovery "when the company or defendant responds. The "discovery" stage is when both parties have to reveal documents or facts pertaining to the grievance (www.uscourts.gov, 2005).