Nashville Banner Publishing Company Case Study

An employee bringing a suit must meet the McDonnell-Douglas Test. which came from the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green case and in this case Keene met the requirements. First, an employee must belong to a protected class, in this case Keene was older than 40 years. Second, she also met the qualifications of job. Third, the employee must be rejected or suffer from another adverse job action. Keene was terminated from her job. Last, but not the least, the employer seeks another person with similar qualifications or treats the employee differently. The 61 year old employee was replaced with a 24 year old employee. Also, under the Age Discrimination of Employment Act, Dillard’s has over 40 employees and it cannot fire an employee based on age. While the plaintiff established prima facie, the defendant failed to provide a successful defense or preponderance of evidence (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2014, p. 444). It is illegal to make employment decisions based on age.

First, the legal issues, in this case, are The Equal Employment Opportunity Commision filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the Dial Corporation. The court decided that Dial Corporation did nothing wrong and there were no legal erras on the conclusions or liabilities.

Separate Opinions: Judgment was affirmed by Judges Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. , as they believed Allen was discharged for taking unauthorized breaks from her scheduled employment. Since Allen failed to present evidence of a discriminatory motive from Isotoner, or that reason for releasing her from employment was a ground for discrimination, Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell, and Cupp, JJ. felt only the issues presented by the facts of Isotoner discharging Allen due to ‘unauthorized breaks’ should be decided on, while issues of the facts not directly placed on issue should only be responded to with advisory opinion.

Brooks Pharmaceuticals have to prove that discrimination against these employees was not because of their age. The dismissal of theses employees was solely based on their performance. Failure by the company to prove the fact, there would be legal problems for the organization.

The court should take a look at what the partners said like, “she was sometimes overly aggressive” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 57). The judge should rule in favor of Thelma Jones because she is being sexually discriminated. The employer did in fact discriminate unlawfully because you’re not allowed to tell a woman to be more “femininely” just to get a higher position.

Employee B, in accordance with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), has been violated with age discrimination due to the fact that his performance review was rated at an “above average” in comparison to the 32 year old that had his annual review rated at “adequate.” The (OWBPA) was an amendment to the (ADEA) in 1990, specifically drafted to ensure that fair treatment and labor rights are afforded to any employee over the age of 40.

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,

The legal process within the human resources department tries to format strategies and alliances that avoid negative activities affecting the employers and employees; however, exhibitions using common sense or compassion can conflict with these guidelines creating inappropriate behaviors. If this becomes the case, disciplinary actions begin bringing about other matters of legal issues. Nevertheless, once an individual believes they have been illegally mistreated, they become more apt to submit a lawsuit for purposes of revenge, financial struggles, or inapt employment securities (Alboher, 2012).

As described on Facts About Age Discrimination (2008), the ADEA provides protection against age discrimination for both applicants and employees during the hiring and employment termination process. For employees the ADEA protects against age being a factor in opportunities for promotion, assignment of benefits and selection for layoffs. With few exceptions the ADEA prohibits employers from including age as a criterion when advertising or posting notice for available jobs. The ADEA explicitly protects “whistleblowers” against retaliation as a result of filing an age discrimination

The company offered inconsistent versions of why Mr. Gill was terminated and who did the termination. They were indifferent to Mr. Gill’s concerns and did nothing to address those employees engaging in blatant racial harassment even after other black employees complained and, most damaging, the company retaliated against Mr. Gill when he complained by terminating his

Ms. Ward was then dismissed from her position due to discrimination and a violation of the Code of Ethics. She then filed a lawsuit saying that this was a violation of her constitutional right to free speech, her right to exercise religion, freedom from retaliation, her freedom to exercise her first amendment rights, equal protection under the law, due process and freedom from establishment of

The plaintiff can argue that these were the conditions that were used when she was hired. She sought out this job because she was offered great career opportunities but was never given the “career” or the opportunity to make $30,000 annually. This could be classified under intentional misrepresentation or fraud because the plaintiff was brought into the business with false statements. Something else that Elaine can argue is that she was discriminated. After she was fired, she was replaced by a man that had less job experience and a lower education than Elaine. Elaine might have been let go because of her sex. This could be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

One organizational policy that would have benefited Lisa and Pamela is a zero tolerance of discrimination, whether it is sexual, racial, age, or gender. Most companies today would not have tolerated the way these women were treated. Not only because it is not right, but because of the negative publicity it would cause if one of these women were to bring a discrimination charge up against the company. One accusation of discrimination or harassment against a company is usually the catalyst for whatever else may be hiding behind those closed doors.

The main issue was whether McKee was an employee thus entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal or an independent contractor. The court held that McKee was an employee of Reirds Heritage Homes and not an independent contractor. The judge was concerned with the degree of the relationship between an employer and an employee. The main area of duties for Reids Heritage Homes was to sell houses and McKee totally engaged herself in this. Therefore, the Court concluded that McKee was an employee of Reirds Heritage Homes and was entitled to notice of employment termination and damages thereof.

While working with clients, financial professionals have the right of entry to an enormous deal of personal information. Ethical standards necessitate that financial professionals have to keep the information confidential except for when ordered to disclose it by a court of law.