Legal Process Paper

Over the last several decades, workplace issues have become an area of controversy for most employers. This is because the regulations surrounding what practices are considered to be discriminatory have increased dramatically. To enforce these issues, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) is playing a central role in making employers follow these provisions of the law. A recent example of this occurred, with the case EEOC v. HCS Medical Staffing Inc.

The purpose of this paper is to go over a lawsuit that was filled by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The paper will cover who the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is and their role in the lawsuit. It will go over whether or not the lawsuit promotes social change. The paper will also go over how the EEOC as well as other news groups released information about the case to the public. I will then give my take on how I would implement new strategies to make sure the problem does not come up in the workplace again.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may take action when an investigation shows that there has been a violation in a person’s civil rights just because of his or her attributes.

The EEOC is in place to protect the rights of individuals in the workplace. They are also laws in place that protects employees from being punished for reporting discrimination. Laws of the EEOC include:

At this point, Employee B has 180 days to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC may ask Employee B to settle through mediation and in the event that mediation cannot settle the claim, it is then the responsibility of the EEOC to investigate any claims made by employees, report findings and settle any charges. In some cases, the EEOC will file lawsuits to protect individual rights.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee. An employer cannot discriminate due to a person’s color, religion, race, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, age (40 years or older), genetic information or disability. This applies to wages, harassment, training, benefits, hiring, and firing. EEOC’s role in any investigation of discrimination is to accurately and fairly take in the information of the charge and then make a finding. If the EEOC found that there was indeed a discriminating case then they will try to settle it. If the employer does not settle then the EEOC may file a lawsuit. (Overview.

EEO states which is that EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person 's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. These laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.

In the case of Nino v. The Jewelry Exchange, there were allegations brought forth by Rajae Nino who felt he was discriminated against by his former employer, on the account of his gender and national origin. When he was employed with said employer, he was given a copy of the company’s employment contract by the human resources manager and instructed him to read it and sign it without affording him any opportunity to negotiate over its terms. With most discrimination cases, “the EEOC encourages the parties to discrimination charges to use mediation” (Walsh, p. 20), with this case the employer invoked an arbitration provision in Nino’s employment contract wherein the Court of Appeals decided the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. On the flip side, if the unconscionable terms were removed from the contract, the remainder of the employment contract could be enforced.

The EEOC’s role in this lawsuit was to hold the employer accountable for benefiting from modern day enslavement so that companies could be aware of the ramifications of conducting such business. The EEOC first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement, and then filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. After no success, the EEOC quickly filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii and the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Washington.

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,

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).

The immediate problem of concern is whether the claim has some truth. The complainant presented the HR manager with a group (black employees) that are protected by law, but are being disproportionately impacted. This constitutes the initial burden.

Question #3 If you were the district’s EEOC officer, what would you conclude? What disciplinary action, if any, would you take?

The EEOC laws, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, are federal laws that enforce employers to not discriminate against applicants of any background. Discrimination by types such as age, disability, equal pay/compensation, genetic information, harassment, national origin, pregnancy, race/color, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment are all protected under the EEOC laws. It is also illegal for an employer to “discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.” (EEOC , n.d.) The EEOC laws are to help serve justice and to create an equal work environment for people of any kind. The EEOC wants to accomplish the goal of having every applicant to feel at home without being discriminated against. These laws not only affect an employer hiring an applicant however; it affects them in firing, promoting, harassing, training, wages, and benefits. The EEOC’s role is to help find out if any applicant is being discriminated against and to help

It is not my recommendation that ABC wait for the EEOC to perform investigation and file suit against the company. In recent history these proceedings become public affairs and will reflect poorly on ABC and its management regardless of the court’s ruling. ABC’s management should begin mediation with David to prevent suit being filed with the goal of settlement outside of court with ABC’s remedial options including: