St. Mary's Honor Center Case Summary

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.

Bent, J.R., (2011). The telltale sign of discrimination: probabilities, information asymmetries, and the systematic disparate treatment theory, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2011, Volume 44, Issue 4, p. 797

The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.

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?

129 S. Ct. 2658, 2664 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 505. This vague standard will undoubtedly spur more litigation as employers struggle to decipher what “a strong basis in evidence” exactly means. Furthermore, employers must now establish a Title VII claim against themselves before they can act.

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

In Summary: On 08/25/2016 at 2000 hours, R/o's were dispatched to St. Anthony Hospital (2875 W 19th St, Chicago, IL 60623) in regards to a battery victim with a broken jaw that was in room number 387. Upon arrival, R/o's spoke with the victim Veraza, Rafael (M/W DOB 04/16/2000), along with his mother and father on scene.

Through the years, America has made an overall improvement in eliminating discrimination, inequality and slavery and focusing more on inclusion, equal rights, and equal opportunity. Despite a considerable improvement, there are corporations and individuals that often revert to archaic means of treating employees, creating hostile environments. Consequently, different advocacy groups and laws still remain in effect and continue to evolve to protect the citizens and non-citizens of the USA.

The disparate treatment doctrine requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Three provisions required to prove disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. Proof of discriminatory motive is critical and may be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment. Proof may also be inferred from the falsity of the employer’s explanation for the treatment, (Walsh, 2010).

National origin discrimination. Foreign accent and middle eastern discrimination. Only illegal if under Title VII if origin is listed. Plaintiff has to proove of prima facia case. Have to be a member of a protected class, adverse action was taken, and was qualified for his job. Employer also has to offer a legitimate reason for action. Employee then can argue the legitimacy of the action. Employer must have facts on paper. This is called disperate treatment.

The immediate problem of concern is whether the claim has some truth. The complainant presented the HR manager with a group (black employees) that are protected by law, but are being disproportionately impacted. This constitutes the initial burden.

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.

When a person is discriminated against their race, gender, and age. This is some of the most evident forms of discrimination. I believe the most qualified person should receive the job, regardless of race or ethnicity. When employers disrupt workplace discrimination, legally they can be sued by the person or persons and receive bad publicity. When a employee hurts from unfair treatment due to their race and religion. Proving discrimination is difficult as is can occur in a number of work-related areas, during your initial hiring phase, during training or even after you get the job and have to participate in job evaluations. As far as ethnicity goes, Americans come in every color, shape, and size and a successful business is one that understands