Rivera Vineyards, Inc.

Another law the plant may be violating is the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This law “forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Noe, Hollenback, Gerhart & Wright, 2011). According to the case, the plant employs approximately 1,500 workers and one third of the workforce is Hispanic (Fransson, Gareett & Noll, 2005). The plant mostly hires Hispanic to

A lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016 by Fresno Police Sergeant Cervantes who is suing Fresno Police Department and three other detectives. He states workplace harassment and discrimination due to his Hispanic ethnicity. Further details state, “Sgt. Paul Cervantes accuses Sgt. Tim Tietjen and Detectives Brad Alcorn and Cary Phelps of smearing his reputation with false accusations and spreading rumors that he’s a dirty cop. Tietjen, Alcorn and Phelps are white.”(Lopez, para.2) Such accusations can lead to further tensions, costly legal battles, and government investigations. Sergeant Cervantes seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees for discrimination, retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. He also states he has been subjected to such discrimination and harassment since January 2008 to the present. Furthermore, it is not the first time Fresno Police Department has been sued for similar incidences. There is an ongoing problem in the department that needs to be resolve.

In the case of Patel v. Quality Inn South, it was first proclaimed by a district court that undocumented aliens were not protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (“PATEL v. QUALITY, ” n.d.). The Eleventh Circuit Court contacted the U.S. Department of Labor in order to determine whether or not undocumented aliens could protest and file for violations under the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The U.S. Department of Labor responded and took “the position that undocumented aliens were covered by the provisions of the FLSA and thus were entitled to its protections” (“PATEL v. QUALITY,” n.d.). The Circuit Court then reversed the decision of the district court and held that

Derrick L. Kincade, a former software implementation consultant for PROS, Inc. ("PROS"), claims the company violated chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code by (1) withdrawing an alleged promotion he had received based on his race (African American); (2) creating a hostile work environment based on two racially offensive notes he anonymously received at work; (3) retaliating against him for having filed an EEOC charge of discrimination by not allowing him to continue to work from home and by requiring a doctor's note for an absence; and (4) after securing other employment and giving two weeks' notice of resignation, by constructively discharging him. PROS is entitled to summary judgment on these claims under Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 166a(c) and 166a(i)

Ante, at 356, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 394 (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, his regression analyses showed there were disparities within stores. The majority's contention to the contrary reflects only an arcane disagreement about statistical method--which the District Court resolved in the plaintiffs' favor. 222 F.R.D. 137, 157 (ND Cal. 2004). Appellate review is no occasion to disturb a trial court's handling of factual disputes of this order.Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982). Ante, at 352-355, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 391-392. That case has little relevance to the question before the Court today. The lead plaintiff in Falcon alleged discrimination evidenced by the company's failure to promote him and other Mexican-American employees and failure to hire Mexican-American applicants. There were “no common questions of law or fact” between the claims of the lead plaintiff and the applicant class. 457 U.S., at 162, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (Burger, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added). The plaintiff-employee alleged that the defendant-employer had discriminated against him intentionally. The applicant class claims, by

The case of EEOC v. Mesa Sys., Inc., D. Utah, No. 11-1201 states the EEOC is claiming that the Mesa Systems discriminated against a group of employees for using a language other than English in their positions of employment that did not require English only, the employees were given jobs with bad conditions, it was a hostile work environment, and those that complained were treated with retaliation for their behavior and the use of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Among the organization is a number of advocates whose primary focus is ending the epidemic of sexual harassment and abuse of farmworkers. One case that the EEOC has dealt heavily with is a suit against Evan’s Fruit, and its frontman, Juan Marin, who abused and threated a large number of women, including a 15-year-old girl. Unfortunately, Marin and Evan’s Fruit as a whole denied all charges, and the jury ultimately sided with Evan’s Fruit. Another noteworthy case is that of the perpetrator of Jack DeCoster, who committed a series of heinous crimes in his egg factories. He was caught committing acts of animal cruelty on a number of occasions, raping women and girls, and overall mistreating migrant workers. At one point, the Mexican government sued DeCoster for his abuses against immigrants, but when confronted by law enforcement, he would hide the immigrants away so he would not be caught, storing them in cardboard boxes and rarely feeding them. DeCoster denied all wrongdoing, but still settled the case, and the women were compensated for their suffering. Though these cases were tragic, some good came out of them in the form of the EEOC. For one, while Evan’s Fruit was not convicted, the case of Juan Marin has helped the EEOC in the formation of new sexual harassment trainings and policies. While this

Another legal case that was reviewed, and is a directly correlated to EEOC and Civil Rights discrimination issues is the Alaimo v. Thompsonville Fire District #2 and Collen Ann Reidy. In this case we again see Civil Rights Act violations as well as Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 under 29 USC § 791 and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 violations (Phelan, 2015). Additionally, we see State of Connecticut Workers Compensation Retaliation Violations related to Conn. Gen. § 31-290a and Conn. Gen. § 31-76b. In this case we again see retaliation against Alaimo for he didn’t agree with a politicians plans not to build a new fire station. Instead of following the laws, statues, regulations and policies as they relate to an employee the Commissioners

This case clarifies who is defined as a supervisor in harassment lawsuits. The opinion of the case states that “an employee is a supervisor for purposes of … liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.” This means that if the employee fired, demoted, disciplined, changed the work schedule of, or transferred the victim, etc. then the employer is liable for harassment. But, if the person is a manager without the power to change the victim’s employment status, then the employer is not liable for harassment so long as the employer established a system that allowed the victim to notify senior management of the harassment so that senior management could deal with the harassing

The famous Mexican fast food restaurant Chipotle cannot catch a break these last few months. The widespread E Coli outbreak is now not the only legal trouble the company is facing. According to USA Today, Chipotle is now facing charges in Cincinnati for gender discrimination. There are claims that female managers were wrongfully terminated by a former chipotle manager who supposedly treated male managers better than the three female managers who are making the claims. The female managers say that the former manager treated males considerably better than females even when

The article I chose discusses possible discrimination of women working for Sterling Jewelers that has recently resurfaced in a court case. In the case, multiple women are claiming that their employers, who are owned by Sterling Jewelers, refused to give women equal chances for promotions or raises based on whether or not they would give sexual favors to the managers. The women also claim that those who reported their incidents with the managers, were ignored by Sterling Jeweler’s human resources department. If the court were to find the women’s claims to be substantial, this would be a clear example of employer discrimination because the women were not given an equal of an opportunity as men based solely on the fact that they were women (and

Ultimately, one employee sued, alleging a hostile work environment, said Coby Turner, managing associate for the labor and employment group in Seyfarth Shaw’s Sacramento office. The case, which was settled confidentially, might never have been filed if the employer had intervened early on to put an end to the bullying and taunting.

The Gallo Winery plant tour was an awesome experience for me. I have always been curious about how a product was made from start to finish, and after the Gallo tour I have many questions answered. In this paper you will learn many different things about how a production plant runs and what they continually do to make improvements in all aspects of their business. Some focal points of this paper will be on the Gallo Winery operational strategy, what type of processes are utilized in the plant, and whether this company uses a lean production process or not.

In the case of Paul Sanchez, the labor side has the power to sue the union if the employee’s thinks they have violated