Ms. Singleton And The Civil Rights Act Of 1964

A major part of Title VII is the addition of the way that the Supreme Court infers violations of Title VII in regards to harassment. The term harassment was not even used in the original development of the law but the Supreme Court has set precedent when it comes to employees being made to work in a hostile work environment. According to the Supreme Court, the law has been broken when an employer creates an environment that alters the terms of the conditions of the employment contract.

The United States Supreme Court, as well as federal district and state courts, defines employee rights and an employer’s liability for employment law violations. Treatment on the job, including hiring, firing, and promotions, must be based on qualifications and merit and not on race, gender, age, sexual preference or how one responds to sexual advances. Yet despite these laws and policies, many employees continue to suffer from workplace harassment and employment discrimination.

Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.

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.

According to the facts presented in the article, It appears that the employees have taken the necessary steps by reporting the complaints to Human Resources and Employment Office of Communication. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 covers discriminations and employees that work in a hostile environment. My hope is that the employees' continue to be bold and courageous and stand for what is right. These types of injustices must be exposed and address to keep employees and employer in compliance with the law. When employers fail to adhere to policy, procedures and protect the rights of workers, they could be held accountable in a court of

3. Research and support your answer with two appellate level (including Supreme Court) U.S. cases that discuss sexual harassment and Title VII, and pertain to this case. Provide the case names, citations, facts, and decisions of those cases. (25 points each case for a total of 50 points)

Title VII states that an employee cannot be treated differently because of sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When used as a defense, bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) allows an organization to hire and employ individuals on the basis of the qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. This paper will discuss the necessary steps employers must take in order to justify using sex as a discriminator when hiring employees and review some known cases where BFOQ was used as a defense.

Based on my reading, Under Title VII, there are two types of sexual harassment claims: (1) quid pro quo sexual harassment, which occurs when "submission to or rejection of [unwelcome sexual] conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual;" and (2) hostile environment sexual harassment, which exists "[w]hen the workplace is permeated with 'discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, ' that is 'sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim 's employment."

Ultimately, the employee in a discrimination lawsuit has the burden of proof. This means the employee must present enough evidence to convince the judge or jury that the employer discriminated. The employer doesn't have to prove that it did not discriminate; it only has to present some evidence of a legitimate motive. Of course, employers don't want to lose lawsuits, and typically present as much evidence as they can that their decisions were legitimate and legal. From a legal perspective, however, it's up to the employee to prove that the employer violated Title VII. EEOC Discrimination.

The law covering the retaliation issue on the sexual harassment case would be “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments” (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm)

Sexual harassment describes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees which include federal, state, and local governments. Sexual harassment has occurred when an employment decision affecting an individual is made because the individual submitted to or rejected an unwelcome sexual conduct. Sexual harassment has also occurred when an unwelcome sexual conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or abusive work

The legal issue that is discussed in case 2.1 is disparate treatment gender discrimination. I say this because Harbor Lights Restaurant is reaching out to individuals with two years of experience in bartending or being a cocktail server. Although, this is a qualification for the job and therefore it is not discriminatory. However, in the restaurant's job ad they add a description they trying to hire individuals who can wear uniforms that run from a size 8 to a 12. The restaurant's job description is typically trying to hire a woman instead of men because men do not wear sizes 8 through 12. If a man were to bring this case to court, he would win because the ad displays clear indications of gender discrimination.

In the first 12 years following the Vinson decision, the lower courts centered the issue of employer liability on the questions of quid pro quo versus hostile environment harassment. This meant that, if submitting to the harassment was as condition of employment, there was liability for the supervisor’s conduct. If not, the negligence standard would apply. This led to a variety of arguments that sought to stretch r shrink the definition of what constituted a quid pro quo claim. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions, further clarifying the issue of employer liability for supervisor harassment (Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 1998; Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998). In these cases, the court distinguished between situations

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (law.cornell.edu, 2006)

Despite the fact that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it still continues to happen even though women are more aware of it since they were first included into the law enforcement. According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2002) sexual harassments is defined as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical