Should The Civil Right Act?

Respondent Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific"), submits this position statement in response to the discrimination charge filed by, Terry Scharfe ("Complainant"). The Complainant claims that Union Pacific discriminated against in retaliation for a prior complaint of harassment and on the basis of disability when he was discharged from his position as a Special Agent with the Union Pacific Police Department.

I was impressed with the oral argument of Vance V. Ball State University case. When I first listened to the oral argument I gained a clear understanding as to why petitioner Vance reason where for filing a lawsuit. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; make it unconstitutional for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC, n.d., para. 1). Due to the power that businesses needed to fire workers spontaneously, government and federal laws have been set up to guarantee that purposes behind end are defended and that separation does not assume a part in one's capacity to keep up their occupation (Szypszak,

Facts: Gawley was a police officer who worked for Indiana University for several years. She sued the college because she noted sexual harassment by a higher-ranking officer than she was. She also sued because she felt she was part of a hostile work environment and that officers in her department retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the college. Her final argument was that there was spoliation of evidence. The district court found in favor of the employer. The case did not go to trial because the district court granted summary judgment. Summary judgment is used to avoid trials. The decision was made based on two key decisions made by the Supreme Court in other cases and that the university was able to establish an affirmative defense. The university “may assert an affirmative defense that examines the reasonableness of the employer’s and the target’s conduct” (Kaplin & Lee, 2014, p. 167). Gawley then appealed to the United State Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. This case brief will outline the question, holding, reasoning, and significance of this case as it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheila White interviewed with Marvin Brown and obtained a job as a “track laborer” with Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company. Shortly after her hire date, however, she assumed forklift operator duties. This new assignment still fell under the “track laborer” position description, and White occasionally performed those duties although her primary responsibility was operating the forklift. Three months into her new job, White complained to the company that her immediate supervisor was sexually harassing her on the job. He was temporarily suspended and required to attend sexual harassment training. White was then informed that she was being reassigned to track labor duties only. White

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.

The case, Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, explores the issue of suspected racial discrimination associated with disparate treatment and disparate impact caused by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) against a qualified, experienced boilermaker and foreman that is African American. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding this case include: Is this a case of disparate treatment and/or impact and was the plaintiff, David Dunlap, subject to racial discrimination? Finally, did the TVA use personal hiring practices that allowed for racial bias in the interviewing process?

When our founding fathers sat down to illustrate and create the foundation of the United States, they had many goals and ideals they set out to uphold. One of those is equality. It states clearly in our constitution that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” It can sometimes be a blurry line to if these ideals are still upheld in a rapidly changing and disunified country. This is where our civil sequences: Liberties and Rights, keep our country intact. 1 Both Civil Liberties and Rights are granted and defined in the Constitution. We must continue enforcing our civil sequences to maintain order for ourselves, our states,

During the 1900’s, it was hard for a black to get a good paying job, male or female. The NAACP would hold and support multiple court cases over the years in the pursuit of getting better jobs for the black populace of america. One of these court cases was 1970’s Griggs v. Duke Power co. (link to the NAACP LDF article) Six years after congress passed Title VII of the civil rights act, making it illegal for companies and business to segregate and discriminate based on race, After Title Seven of the civil rights act was written, Duke power had to change the way they hired and worked their employees. Instead of purposely putting blacks that they hired into the labor department, they made requirements for Hiring, promotions and transfers. In order to be hired by Duke Power co., one had to have a High-School graduate diploma, scores on an IQ test equal to that of a normal High-School graduate. These changes were discrete discrimination against blacks, considering the quality of schools for blacks and how difficult it was for a black to get an education. This discrimination was noticed by NAACP president and director/counselor of the legal defence and educational fund Jack Greenberg, who argued in favor of the African American employees at Duke power co. In a surprising decision, the court ruled against Duke Power co. They stated that Title VII protects from both open discrimination AND acts that are fair in writing but discriminatory in practice. Title seven was meant to force companies to measure the person's ability to do the job and not the person on paper. Among many court cases that the NAACP participated in, this case was the breaking point for blacks in the

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.

In the case of Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 the court reversed the judgment and because of the Civil Rights Act 1964 which prohibited the discrimination based on race, therefore, equitable relief to achieve its purposes, including the ability to award seniority retroactively. Due to the title 7 and Civil Rights Act of 64 which prohibits hiring discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin as well as in the case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974);same asMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973); as well as Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-430 (1971), in addtion, an ordained that its policy of outlawing such discrimination should have the "highest

Should citizens of the United States all have the same rights? Or do the individual states deserve to control our interstate liberties? This is an important issue today as men and women are charged left and right with felonies in neighboring states when they are simply exercising what are everyday rights at home. Americans who have paid hard earned money to enjoy the very freedoms being threatened have the most to loose. Let’s look into the laws regulating concealed carry in America today and their constitutionality.

Racial discrimination in granting rights and privilege between the veterans of white Americans and black African American is a major issue since seventeenth century. From the very beginning of America White Americans used to treat African Americans as slaves. Slavery in the United States began soon after English colonists first settled Virginia and lasted until the passage of the Civil Right Act of 1866. The nineteenth century saw a hardening of institutionalized racism and legal discrimination against citizens of African descent in the United States. During this time, separateness, racial distinction and expressions of white domination all increased, and also the anti-black violence such as lynching and riots (Hill,

Whether big or small, corporations should not be treated like people, let alone granted religious freedom. The Supreme Court continued the horrible trend of pro-corporation rights. Whether one stands with Hobby Lobby, Inc. and considers this case a success of religious freedom or an intrusion, I see it as the court favored corporation’s rights over personal rights. Female workers should be given the availability to use contraceptives. In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Burwell v. Hobby. The case dealt with the free exercise clause under the first amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFTA) and whether a for-profit corporation could be exempt from the Affordable Care Act. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the government from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion unless “application of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest” and is the “least restrictive means of furthering that interest”.

This paper will outline a complaint process and illustrate the civil litigation that could follow if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, through mediation and arbitration cannot resolve a charge. The complaint is based on a scenario of an employee, named John. John works for a private sector business and he wishes to lodge a complaint of discrimination against the company he works for. This paper will explain the steps that are taken, from the beginning with the (EEOC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The paper will continue explaining the process by illustrating the civil litigation steps from the state level to the highest level of the United States Supreme Courts.

Even though the Civil Rights was so long ago, some still question whether our world has overcome the problems faced back then. The U.S. has changed significantly since the Civil Rights in both positive and negative ways, but the majority has clearly been positive. Obviously, there are still improvements we need to make as a society to banish all racism. However, if we work together as a whole, we will definitely be able to achieve these goals.