Gill V. Eeoc Case Brief

I was impressed with the oral argument of Vance V. Ball State University case. When I first listened to the oral argument I gained a clear understanding as to why petitioner Vance reason where for filing a lawsuit. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; make it unconstitutional for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC, n.d., para. 1). Due to the power that businesses needed to fire workers spontaneously, government and federal laws have been set up to guarantee that purposes behind end are defended and that separation does not assume a part in one's capacity to keep up their occupation (Szypszak,

STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheila White interviewed with Marvin Brown and obtained a job as a “track laborer” with Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company. Shortly after her hire date, however, she assumed forklift operator duties. This new assignment still fell under the “track laborer” position description, and White occasionally performed those duties although her primary responsibility was operating the forklift. Three months into her new job, White complained to the company that her immediate supervisor was sexually harassing her on the job. He was temporarily suspended and required to attend sexual harassment training. White was then informed that she was being reassigned to track labor duties only. White

The case, Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, explores the issue of suspected racial discrimination associated with disparate treatment and disparate impact caused by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) against a qualified, experienced boilermaker and foreman that is African American. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding this case include: Is this a case of disparate treatment and/or impact and was the plaintiff, David Dunlap, subject to racial discrimination? Finally, did the TVA use personal hiring practices that allowed for racial bias in the interviewing process?

A. Plaintiff, Beth Ann Faragher, has brought action to her employer, City of Boca Raton- Bill Terry and David Silverman. Plaintiff claims that she was sexually harassed by her immediate supervisors during her employment, which was a violation of Title VII and other state and federal laws. Plaintiff also claims that the sexual harassment she endured by the defendants created a sexually hostile environment. Plaintiff is also suing Terry for battery and the City for negligent retention and supervision of Terry

Mr. Allvis, (Allvis) met the qualifications for the position, because Allvis met the same qualifications as Crow, he is a similar situated employee. Additionally, Allvis had been working previously for VMH for eight years. Likewise, Crow had been working for VMH for twenty years. Both Crow and Allvis had previous supervisory experience. Also, Allvis is not in Crow’s protected class because he is white and not Native American. Allvis was treated more favorably than Crow because he was hired for the position when Crow had more years of experience working for VMH and being a supervisor. Therefore, Crow has met all four elements of a prima facie case because Crow is a member of a protected class, was qualified for the position in which she sought, was not hired for the position because Allvis, a white male was treated more favorable and received the

Retaliation is when employers takes negative action against employees who have made a complaint against the organization due to illegal treatment of the employee based on their race, sex, gender, age, or disability (Fraser & Simkins, 2010). The retaliation act was put into place as measure to protect employees from negative treatment from their management team and the organization. In the case of White versus Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway company Sheila White was a female in an all-male organization; she was harassed by here manager and when she filed a complaint she was put into another job function and then was suspended from work for 30 days without pay (United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2004). In 1997 Shelia White

Another legal case that was reviewed, and is a directly correlated to EEOC and Civil Rights discrimination issues is the Alaimo v. Thompsonville Fire District #2 and Collen Ann Reidy. In this case we again see Civil Rights Act violations as well as Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 under 29 USC § 791 and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 violations (Phelan, 2015). Additionally, we see State of Connecticut Workers Compensation Retaliation Violations related to Conn. Gen. § 31-290a and Conn. Gen. § 31-76b. In this case we again see retaliation against Alaimo for he didn’t agree with a politicians plans not to build a new fire station. Instead of following the laws, statues, regulations and policies as they relate to an employee the Commissioners

The significance of this case revolves around the “supervisor(s)” liability rule under the Title VII. The rule under the Title VII act clearly states that employer’s liability for workplace harassment depends upon the status or job title and duties of the harasser. Summarizing that if the harasser is a co-worker the employer will only be held accountable if negligence in diffusing the intense and awkward work conditions was found on their part. However, if the harasser is a supervisor, (has the power to change employee work status i.e. hire, fire, etc.), and the harassment results in tangible actions towards the employee such as changes in duties, benefits, etc… the employer is totally liable. On the other hand, the employer is not liable if corrective measures and procedure were provided on the companies end, or if the plaintiff ignored or disregarded corrective measures provided by the employer.

According to the opinion in this case, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” By limiting the definition of supervisor and not including supervisors without the power to make “employment action against … victims,” this case curtailed the scope of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a classic example of a court ruling that interprets a law and in its ruling in effect changes a law. In this example, it limited the scope of liability for harassment and discrimination in the work

Today, businesses face numerous challenges. The most important issue that a business faces is dealing with discrimination in their hiring process. With the establishment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination can become a liability issue for businesses if they do not follow this act, since this act entitles to protect those who suddenly are discriminated against. In a Pennsylvania press release entitled “Hussey Copper To Pay $85,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit” from February 11th, 2011, shared a case addressing that a Copper Manufacturer refused to hire an applicant who they thought was disabled. In the press release, they discussed the lawsuit around how Hussey Copper offered Donald Teaford a job with their company

Unbeknownst to many, the workplace harbors a notorious serial killer; Race. There are several cases, notably that of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, where racial tensions in the workplace sparked hatred and resentment. Alison Parker and Adam Ward were murdered by Vester Flanagan, a coworker of theirs. As for why, The Louisiana Weekly states that Vester “sued his former employer for racial discrimination,” but the claim fell through. While his reasons do not justify his actions, racial discrimination is just as intolerable, especially in the workplace. But racial tension doesn’t come naturally to the workplace, it is brought by the people, people instilled with the ideas of their ancestors.

What is interesting about this lawsuit is that it actually focuses on two separate compliance issues, both enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: sexual harassment and retaliation. The underlying issue was the sexual harassment that Goldston alleged was occurring. The substantive issue became the fact

The unfavorable treatment of I received hy the employee I believed was based on my not having a certain racial characteristic, cultural history, or other perceived difference. The clerk stated I will be with you shortly when I approached the desk however a white couple, exited a loaner car, enter the door, and approached the desk after me and the clerk immediately addressed their concern.

In 1994, Six African American employees of Texaco filled for a racial discrimination lawsuit against Texaco. Tapings of Texaco executives having conversations about destroying evidence related to a discrimination lawsuit against Texaco and racist terms to against black employees become public; and, Texaco was facing a crisis (Coolidge, 1996).