St. Mary's Honor Center vs. Hicks

In this particular case, Mr. Maalick received very clear and convincing racial and religious discrimination from both his supervisor and from his co-workers. The employees of Treton blatantly violated the Civil Rights Act and the Equal. Employment. Opportunity Commission. These acts do not allow, under any circumstances, discrimination based on the idea of race, color, sex, religion or age (The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | National Archives, n.d.).

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.

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 proof of discriminatory intent is not required and although the court concluded that TVA’s processes with interviewing had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates in general, the court disagreed, citing the “lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a “prima facie” case” (Walsh, 2010). Dunlap did not prove, within the evidence presented, that the procedures TVA used were practiced prior. Although the district court concluded that “TVA's interview process had been manipulated to exclude African American candidates” (Walsh, 2010), the court of appeals disagreed because it did not believe there was analytical data that blatantly prove how any protected group was impacted adversely. The court found that Dunlap can only challenge his specific interview processes and not an entire group.

On June 29, 2009, the last day of the United States Supreme Court’s 2008–09 term, the Court rendered the much anticipated decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009). Ricci was quickly dubbed the “white firefighter’s case” by many, however, the case involved much more than the firefighters’ asserted right to a promotion.

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,

On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s

In Ricci v. DeStefano there were a group of firefighters who took a written exam for promotion in the New Haven, CT fire department. When the results were tallied, more white firefighters passed or did better on the exam than black firefighters, which would have led to a disproportionate number of white candidates getting promoted. As a result of this, the City of New Haven, CT Fire Department, threw the exam out and no one was promoted. This went to the Supreme Court and they found that by discarding the exams, the City of New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (website).

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

Also, in Copley v. Bax Global, heard in the watchful eye of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a past laborer sued his manager under the Federal Social equality law prohibiting racial isolation in the advancement of contracts. Besides, the offended party attested that he was expelled from his work since he wasn’t Hispanic. Lester Copley was an administrator of Bax Global Ocean Services for Florida and also Latin America, from which the association drove global transportation. Here, the offended party didn’t have any agreement and was a willful employee. The cases clear up those particular protests can get to trial on the ground of significant email verification, yet that cases begun on intermittent occasions are not inclined to prosper. The employers confront the least hazard when they

The purpose of this case study is to justify the fairness of the court settlement between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Burlington Northern Railroad & Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). Burlington Northern did willingly and knowingly breach employee personal privacy, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) in conducting unauthorized genetic blood testing on unknowing employees. The court mandate that they pay $2.2 million to 36 employees is fair and just. To illustrate the fairness of the settlement, I will show the utilitarian perspective from

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.

According to the Legal Dictionary (2014), “The Wards Cove decision was severely criticized by Civil Rights leaders, who believed the Supreme Court had made disparate impact cases almost impossible to win” (p.1). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was in effect. This act proposed that employees must have proof in showing that the employer committed a disparate impact crime. No longer would it allow the victims to argue against the company based on their own views. At the same time the owner must show evidence that there is a crime committed based on these findings. Title VII along with the Civil Rights Act would dismiss any further rulings on this matter. The Supreme Court has adjusted some of the compensation methods for the disparate impact theory. It is against the law for an employer to allow different standards, conditions, or terms of the job to their workers. This

Everyone agrees that workplace discrimination has no place in the modern business world. But not everyone understands the laws that protect employees against discrimination. In this case, what you don’t know can hurt you, especially if an aggrieved employee files a discrimination claim.