Law & Ethics

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.

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,

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

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 fact that Anita said that the plaintiff will probably get job with the fact that the plaintiff had performance evaluation than the younger woman awarded the promotion led the plaintiff to expend emotional and financial recourses pursuing this ADEA claim in federal court. (Twomey, 2010, pg. 525)However, when analyzed by the court under a “direct evidence of discrimination “theory and under the McDonnell Douglas model, she had no case. (Twomey, 2010, pg. 525)

Based on the incidents Kim experienced, her lawyer should examine her situation as it pertains to the employment protections and regulations within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits public and private employers from discriminating against employees based on national origin, race, color, religion, and gender. These anti-discrimination guidelines apply in every step of the employment process, from the initial recruitment and interviewing to terminating employment. In Kim’s case, her lawyer should examine both Kim’s allegations of employment discrimination and sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII regulations.

Essentially, the case could go in light of the defendant. Despite the fact that Ms. Singleton did not prove that the offending conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. Generally, we determine whether a work environment is sufficiently hostile by looking at all the circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere insulting statement, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee 's work performance. It is established that simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment. Title VII is not intended to serve as a workplace civility code.

Plaintiff Jocelyn Harkin (“Harkin” or “Plaintiff”) alleges that Starboard are culpable to her for violations of Title VII by discriminating against her based-on sex, [dkt. 1 at ¶223], and for retaliation for her utilizing her rights under Title VII, [id. 1 at ¶25], and for violating the Equal Pay Act [id. 1 at ¶27]. The Complaint provides no factual allegations that meet pleading standards of the foregoing federal statutes. Since she fails to allege any basis for imposing liability against Starboard under Title VII for retaliation or under the Equal Pay Act, Harkin’s complaints of retaliation and violations

Yes, it is clear to me how and why the judge was able to include those who were not specificity directed by the company’s actions to be included in the outcome of the ruling. Title VII was put in place to help protect minorities in the workplace and those in search of employment. This Act which was passed in 1964, prohibits discriminations in regards to the process of hiring, firing, and training, promoting and disciple along with the advertisement of open positions. This Act also includes any workplace

The issue being considered was if the Transportation Agency violated the Civil Rights of Johnson (a male employee) by selecting Joyce (a female employee) for a promotion when gender was a contributing factor in the selection process. The review board recommended Johnson for the position but Joyce was awarded the position by the selecting official as part of a documented Affirmative Action plan. Johnson maintained that his rights were violated because Joyce’s gender was a contributing factor to the selection process, and because he was the most favored candidate the position should have been awarded

Sperling’s harassing conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination “against any individual with respect to his . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . sex.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (West 2018). Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc., 915 F.2d 777, 779 (1st Cir. 1990), superseded in part by statute, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991). Mere utterances, simple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents are not actionable under Title VII. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998); Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Furthermore, a plaintiff must show that the harassing conduct subjectively and objectively created a hostile work environment. Faragher, 524 U.S. at 787. Here, both parties have agreed that Ms. Travers could satisfy the subjective

Since my journey here at Bryant began in September, I have changed so much. Coming here, I expected certain things such as my study habits, daily routine and friend group to be altered. One change I was not anticipating making was my approach to ethics. Over the course of the past fifteen weeks, my knowledge of ethics as well as my approach to ethics has changed. I have become more knowledgeable about the different approaches to ethics and have gained insight as to where I stand in my approach to ethics.

“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with

When it comes to large sums of money, it is not uncommon for the spender to feel they have been ripped off or become over protected. The practice of law is no exception to this phenomenon, and crocked lawyers and paralegals have negatively contributed to the notion. On several occasions law professionals have taken client money for personal use, acting against the law and rules of professional conduct. Although lawyers and paralegals have their own individual rules and guidelines to abide by, they follow the same professional structure of proper conduct. The rules of conduct for paralegals is governed by the Law Society of Upper Canada and is the governing body responsible for reports of misconduct. Further investigations will lay out the proper procedures and tasks that must be completed when a paralegal encounters an accusations of misconduct, specifically when a client accuses a paralegal of misappropriating money from the clients trust fund. When it comes to possible options it is important to remember that by proactively sending a report of the circumstance to the Law Society of Upper Canada with a detailed list of events, bookkeeping and accounts billed to the client will help your case prior to the client reporting you to the Law Society. Should a paralegal choose to ignore the threat of the client, in hopes that the client will not follow through with higher involvement, the paralegal will then face an audit by the Law Society. If the Law Society is apprised that the