Legal Aspects Of Human Resource Management

Finally, in April 2010, the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York concluded that their judgement in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, regarding whether or not improper methods were utilized, citing age discrimination as the basis. The lawsuit including the judgement against the firm, proved to be paramount for countless reasons, since it established a precedent in reference to age discrimination in the workplace.

RULE: The court concluded that the segregation of African American school children “generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”

The proof of discriminatory intent is not required and although the court concluded that TVA’s processes with interviewing had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates in general, the court disagreed, citing the “lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a “prima facie” case” (Walsh, 2010). Dunlap did not prove, within the evidence presented, that the procedures TVA used were practiced prior. Although the district court concluded that “TVA's interview process had been manipulated to exclude African American candidates” (Walsh, 2010), the court of appeals disagreed because it did not believe there was analytical data that blatantly prove how any protected group was impacted adversely. The court found that Dunlap can only challenge his specific interview processes and not an entire group.

The district court’s decision to dismiss this case is based on the Plaintiffs failure to prove theory of purposeful discrimination, which is denied under Alexander v. Sandoval where the Supreme Court ruled that even if a federally funded entity knowingly adopts a policy that creates disparate impact, Title VI still affords no remedy and also because Proposition 16 is a facially neutral policy that happened to create a racially disparate impact, it holds no bearing to Title VI. The court ultimately found that Proposition 16 was created to improve ALL student athlete graduation rights. As for Pryor’s ADA claim, it too was dismissed because Pryor lacked the standing to remedy her loss of eligibility due to the fact the NCAA may still grant her the relief she seeks.

Thoughts: This case is a good example of judicial review of which a higher court can review the

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was at first created to protect against racial discrimination, but the Supreme Court later expanded the clause to also providing equal treatment amongst different races. The clause says, “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.) A person could not be discriminated upon solely because of his or her race and if the law treated a group of people differently, then a valid reason for the discrepancy of different treatment must exist. Racial minorities, but mainly women, have historically been subjected and made vulnerable to harsh restrictions on activities such as voting, attending college, and working as lawyers. These restrictions, based on stereotypes overlooked the actual capability and potential of each individual woman. For many cases dealing with discrimination of women, the Court looked to another important element of equal protection, which stated that unfair treatment couldn’t be based on immutable distinctions, such as race and gender, because those fixed distinctions are uncontrollable and unrelated to ability. In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), the Supreme Court was just one vote short of adopting gender as a suspect classification. In United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), women rights supporters were very pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling and remain

Legal Question: The legal issue presented in this case ultimately questioned the University of Michigan’s admission policy which sought a more diverse student body. The court addressed whether the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in the admission process violated

In the case of Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 the court reversed the judgment and because of the Civil Rights Act 1964 which prohibited the discrimination based on race, therefore, equitable relief to achieve its purposes, including the ability to award seniority retroactively. Due to the title 7 and Civil Rights Act of 64 which prohibits hiring discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin as well as in the case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974);same asMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973); as well as Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-430 (1971), in addtion, an ordained that its policy of outlawing such discrimination should have the "highest

Plessy V. John H. Ferguson dealing with the separation of black and white residents. In 1980 the state of Louisiana passed a law called “ The Separate Car Act” which mandated separate public accommodations for black and whites on railroads. On July 7, 1982 a man named Homer Plessy purchased a railroad ticket and boarded the “whites-only” section of the railroad. Plessy was immediately told to flee the “whites-only” area and enter “black-only” area. Plessy refused and was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act. Interesting enough, Homer Plessy was 7/8th European descent and 1/8th African descent but was considered black. Plessy was then placed into trial in which his lawyers argued the state denied him his rights under the fourteenth amendment which provided equal treatment under the law. Plessy lost every court in Louisiana before appealing to the Supreme Court. In a 7-1 decision, the court decided as long as facilities are equal, their separation satisfied the fourteenth amendment “Separate But Equal”. This was a huge milestone for black citizens in the United States although they later realized it didn’t seem as nice as it did on paper. This was was later overturned by Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al in the year 1965 and was mandated unconstitutional for the reason that black facilities weren’t equal compared to white

Recently the Supreme Court made a ruling that gave schools across the country a higher standard to abide by when using affirmative action when making admission decisions. This case was brought to attention by Abigail Fisher, a white women rejected by the University of Texas. The verdict was a tame one and ruled in favor of Fisher with admissions requiring ““no workable race-neutral alternatives” when a student’s acceptance status is determined. This avoided much debate compared to the capacity the Court has for changing the nation.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

According to Toobin, the history and personality of the Supreme Court has also been affected by continual topics in recurrent cases as well as recurring constitutional themes. These continually topics are seen in previous cases that have made reappearances in other cases as they are applied to modern times and cases. As seen in the provision of the historic rulings in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education and the 1964 Reynolds v. Sims that established the rule of “one person, one vote” and equal protection played a large role in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans that ruled that Colorado could not keep its cities from passing laws to protect homosexuals (172). Even after over three decades, the decision in Brown and Reynolds greatly influenced the outcome of Romer as it gave insight into rights to all individuals. Laws regarding blacks also continued to recur in the Court system, especially after the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the laws regarding racial classifications. At this time, the Jim Crow laws were struck down and the justices examined law with “strict scrutiny.” Later in the 1970s, the government started programs to help blacks and minorities with affirmative action initiatives. However, the issue of Richmond v. Croson and the so-called Equal Protection Clause violation of a lack of minority subcontractors of J.A. Croson Company led to the debate of “reverse discrimination” and the dependence of the clause to race and classification (208-209). Consequently,

Along with this ruling, the Supreme Court appealed this case. It was believed that the plaintiffs in the case needed more proof. The court wanted the plaintiff to show more reasoning why that individual was denied a job based on race, creed, color, or other factors. The Supreme Court also wanted the employer to show the reasoning behind the testing or the requirements of the job. As a result, the case moved closer to disparate treatment. However, in these types of emotional cases proving the case can be tedious.

In contrast to workers’ compensation, OSHA does not provide payment to injured workers. However, OSHA implements safety policies and standards by company inspections, citations, and fines. In addition, OSHA mandates employers to educate and train employees regarding the specific dangerous substance regulation called the Hazard Communication Standard

If HR was absent from an organization, the company and employees stand unprotected. Policies and procedures are vital in implementation of laws and instructions that guide managers through the processes of hiring, retaining, and termination (Satterlee, 2013, p. 211).