The Case Of Griggs V. Duke Power Company

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

A major part of Title VII is the addition of the way that the Supreme Court infers violations of Title VII in regards to harassment. The term harassment was not even used in the original development of the law but the Supreme Court has set precedent when it comes to employees being made to work in a hostile work environment. According to the Supreme Court, the law has been broken when an employer creates an environment that alters the terms of the conditions of the employment contract.

Next a case relating to employment difficulties during the Black Civil rights movement was Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the year 1971. The ruling on this case by the Supreme Court was that Duke Power Company was « discriminating against black employees, » because their qualification for employment did « not pertain to applicants ' ability to perform the job,» but rather was influenced by other factors such as race, and therefore they were not hiring people in certain racial

After she was fired, Leger filed a lawsuit alleging that HCS Staffing was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act). After hearing both sides, a federal court ruled in favor

She goes on about Affirmative action in the workplace and the views and opinions of all different kinds of people. Tatum believes in Affirmative action because of the many encounters and experiences she had witness and encountered. She goes on to say, ' Affirmative action is needed to lessen bias in the paid labor force because affirmative action is the only legal remedy in the United States for discrimination that does not require the victims (or someone with a stake in their welfare) to notice their condition and come forward with a grievance on their own behalf.'; (Tatum pp 123)

Affirmative action is an action taken by an organization to select on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity by giving due preferences to minorities like women and races being not adequately represented under the existing employment. To make the presentation of all these compositions almost equal in proportion to do away the injustice done in the past. The Supreme Company need to design an affirmative action program in the light of recent Supreme Court judgment passed in favor of affirmative actions to be adopted by various companies.

Eisenberg made claim of sexual harassment and told of employees using illegal substances in the warehouse

After a charge is rejected, both parties will receive a notice stating this. This is allowing the charging employee a 90 day time limit, to decide if they which to file a lawsuit against the employer (www.eeoc.gov, 2003).

The uniform guidelines were developed after the decision made in the 1971 court case of Griggs v Duke Power, where the supreme court ruled that any selection procedure a test with adverse impact is unlawfully discriminatory unless it has been validated in accordance with several guidelines they had produced. Afterward if adverse impact was suspected, these guidelines served as a checklist to see if the selection procedure in use by the organization in question were incompliance with Federal law prohibiting employment practices which discriminate based on race, colour, religion, sex and national origin. The guidelines are also used in the design of selection procedures to minimize adverse impact, often with adherence to additional professional

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Under Title VII sex discrimination is not unlawful if BFOQ can be proven as necessary for that position.

President Kennedy was the originator to utilize the phrase affirmative action to direct employers to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants acquired employments and that employment applicants were treated fairly during employment without regarding their cred, national origin, color or race. The president orders additionally contributed to the development of the President’s Committee on Equal Staffing chances currently referred to as the Equal Staffing Opportunity Commission. Affirmative action procedures in the past focused on developing chances for African Americans in education and employment. This paper provides an analysis of five defenses in affirmative action procedures.

The Rump Organization, a SEC registrant, is planning a corporate restructuring plan. On December 27, 2005 Ronald Rump, the CEO of the organization, along with the Board of Directors approved a plan to involuntarily terminate 100 of the organization’s employees. There is an option for each of the employees to sign a litigation waiver, which forfeits any right they have for legal action against Rump. In exchange for their voluntary signing of the waiver, Rump will offer each employee a lump-sum cash payment

Affirmative action or positive discrimination was a set of laws and policies that were introduced to ensure employment equity relating to race, religion, sex, color and national origin. It means that employers had to consider these factors when staffing their organizations(Dessler, 2008). The major purpose of affirmative action was to promote employers to take actions that achieve non-discrimination within their organization. This was meant to compensate for the earlier discrimination, exploitation and persecution that minority groups, especially African Americans, had been exposed to.

Lincoln Electric Company is a manufacturing company, which has been focusing on welding products for the recent 30 years. The company had outstanding brothers leading the company to success. John was a technical genius and he brought the best skills in production and James was good at management and he was working on the employees ' incentives. The company gained its reputation through the world war till present as the welding equipment supplier with higher quality and lower price at the same time. For the production aspect of welding equipment, it is an advanced production line with continuous flow with high flexibility and low idling time.

As seen in the case study, a court decision may be one way for any company to legally define what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, but there are many ways to define sexual harassment. Everyone has different views and tolerance levels towards sexual harassment. When a case of sexual harassment occurs in a workplace, however, it comes down to how the courts define sexual harassment. The Supreme Court defines sexual harassment to be unlawful in two ways. “The first type involves sexual harassment that results in a tangible employment action;” this is referred to as quid pro quo. For example, if an employee complies with the harasser’s request, then she will get a raise. This unlawful act is usually presented in the workplace by a person who has an upper hand, such as a manager, to ensure that s/he will get what s/he wants. Employees are often victimized by fear that they will not get promoted or that they will get fired. They also dread that if a complaint is filed, it will not be handled correctly. “This instance of sexual harassment always involves another violation of employee rights; [sic] wrongful termination.” This would occur, for instance, when “a supervisor . . . tells a subordinate that . . . she must be sexually cooperative with [him] or . . . she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting” (“U.S. Supreme Court Defines”). [schwinlaw.com]