Sex Discrimination Case Summary

Congress amended Title VII in 1978 by passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and made it clear that discrimination based on pregnancy is unlawful sex discrimination. This legislation reversed the Supreme Court's Gilbert decision in 1976. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 which overruled several Supreme Court decisions rendered in the 1980s that had made it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in their employment discrimination suits and to recover fees and costs when they won their lawsuits (www.eeoc.gov). The amendment stated that parties can request jury trials and those successful plaintiffs can recover compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases. This amendment has

Tracy Green who was also selected for the same position prior to the complainant is married to an “Alpha” shift supervisor Mrs. Doris Green. Mr. Green refused to move shift and faced no administrative actions. The agency moved the complainant not only because for discriminatory reasons but accommodate the nepotism environment which has been allowed within the police department for so long.

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

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 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 31, 1978. It establish law toward pregnant females and related medical conditions. There are several areas that should be addressed, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Pregnancy and Maternity leave, health insurance and fringe benefits, family and medical leave act, EEOC enforcement guidance, and Pregnancy Discrimination Act statistics.

Further, Pastor Forrester was required to treat a pregnant lady, Lisa Ready, in the same way as he would treat temporary illness. Instead of assigning light work to her, he assigned especially hard and dangerous work to her. This is Pregnancy Based Discrimination under Title VII.

In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court issued a decision and framework on how to resolve a disparate discrimination claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Here below follows a summary of the case facts and analysis of the Courts decision and its implications. Summary of The Facts Peggy Young, the petitioner, worked as a part-time driver for United Parcel Services, Inc. (UPS).

Your research on the Young v. United Parcel Services Inc. case revealed the importance of employers to comply with Title VII. Indeed, pregnancy is a condition that a company cannot simply choose to ignore in the company’s policy. In addition, Hébert’s (2016) research reveals that the case also reveals critical details about the theory of law behind cases involving pregnancy. For example, the court actually disagreed with Young about the grounds of disparate treatment theory because the theory requires proof of discriminatory intent. While the court ruled in favor of Young due to the stringent test the situation created for UPS, Hébert’s (2016) claims the disparate impact theory provides better protection for pregnancy discrimination because

The employer claimed that there was no discriminatory decision in replacing the employee on maternity leave. He stated that the employees statutory maternity leave began on September 8th, and ended on March 8th. In early march, the employer tried to make contact but did not receive a response, then in April, the employee on maternity leave made contact with her employer, requesting a letter stating that her maternity leave was extended to May 21st. The employer responded informing her that another person had filled her position. The Equality Officer in this case determined that the employee did have a prima facie case of discrimination. The Officer noted that there was not a resignation by the Employee and pushed for the fact that there was

Jennifer Erickson was employed by Bartell Drug Company. Jennifer sued the company because its insurance plan failed to provide coverage for prescription contraceptives. She alleged that this was a form of sex discrimination under Title VII and a violation of the Pregnancy Act (PDA). Her employer defended by arguing that its failure to provide coverage for prescription contraceptives did not violate Title VII or the PDA because prescription contraceptives were voluntary, were preventive, were used by women only, and did not treat or prevent an illness or disease and because control of one’s fertility choices was not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition under PDA. Bartell Drug Company did cover vasectomy surgery for men. Is preventing pregnancy for women only a form of sex discrimination? Is it a form of pregnancy

Clear as day Title VII was violated. The proof of that is in the evidence. Ms. Elauf was and is under a protected class. She is protected under religion. Though it can also be argued that she was discriminated against trough national origin. The job

In the case of James Smith, the court has to decide if there was discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Workplace Fairness, 2016) On July 21, 2014 President Obama signed an Executive Order that amended previous executive orders and added sexual orientation and gender identity protections for all federal workers, including contractors and subcontractors of the Federal government. According to the law, Smith’s was discriminated on the basis of his sexual orientation. In relation to the second case with John Ortega, the court must decide if his Title VII rights were violated. Under The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Ortega falls under a secondary theory, “associational discrimination on the basis of sex.” This theory supports

She filed a discrimination suit against her former employer stating that she had two disabilities: injuries after a fall and a miscarriage that happened in quick succession. Her employer argued that she failed to establish a disability and that health issues for failing to meet the required work hours was temporary in nature and she has fully recovered from them. She disagreed and found an ally from Canada’s Human Rights Code that both the slip and fall and miscarriage are

On Monday, April 20, 2015, The Washington Post published an article on recently settled employment discrimination case, more specifically a gender discrimination case, Robertson vs Hunter Panels. In Southwestern Pennsylvania, Robertson was hired by Hunter Panels in June 2006, at the start of her career at Hunter Panels LLC she was hired to oversee and perform the inventory and equipment management position. She soon became a supervisor/ manager, she was the only female manager and supervisor at Hunter Panels LLC. Robertson worked for Hunter Panels for six years, during this time she claimed that she was harassed and was excluded by her male co-workers. “I’m former military, and I can take a joke. But things started to turn really ugly and then

The laws discriminating against men warrant the same level of constitutional protection as laws discriminating against women because the courts should be able to apply the same standards to both sexes in cases of discrimination. The term gender is broad and as society becomes more aware of the gender spectrum and not just male and female, the courts must be prepared to handle cases and properly execute protection against gender discrimination.