Title VII Employment Discrimination Cases

The process of establishing if an action/policy is discriminatory can be very challenging. However, a number of theories seek to differentiate actions that constitute discrimination and those that do not. Disparate treatment Theory is amongst the most commonly used theories that have been used to ascertain whether an act or policy amounts to discrimination or not. The theory argues that one is subject to discrimination if they are treated less favorably than others are in similar situations (Bent, 2011).

This writer understood disparate impact as an unfair, biased, or discriminatory decision that is made by an employer towards and employee or perspective job applicant on the basis of personal opinion or ideologies.

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.

Disparate impact is neutral employment practices or procedures that often unintentionally, result in unequal treatment.

The disparate treatment doctrine requires that any plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer has treated some group of people less favorably than others because of any protected classification to include their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. According to Walsh, “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

Disparate impact refers to policies, practices and rules that appear to be neutral and yet result in a disproportionate impact on protected groups on merits such as race or religion. Disparate treatment, on the other hand, is intentional. For example, deliberately testing one race and not any others for a particular skill is disparate treatment. Testing all applicants of all races and getting results from that test that eliminate one particular race disproportionately is disparate impact.

Despite legislation for equal opportunities, sexism is still evident in the workplace. Women have made great advancements in the workforce and have become an integral part of the labor market. They have greater access to higher education and as a result, greater access to traditionally male dominated professions such as law. While statistics show that women are equal to men in terms of their numbers in the law profession, it is clear however, that they have not yet achieved equality in all other areas of their employment. Discrimination in the form of gender, sex and sexual harassment continues to be a problem in today’s society.

This case shows how men and women of all races can be affected by the two headed monster called affirmative action. Affirmative action was established so that members of society such women, minorities or those with handicaps would be guaranteed an honest opportunity to achieve goals, professions or pursue higher education without discrimination. However, when a person’s sex, nationality, social settings and race compete against one another even those the act is intended to protect become

Title VII applies to state and local governments with 15 or more employees and also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations including our federal government. Based on Title VII employment opportunities cannot be denied to any person based upon their race or perceived race or because of their marriage or association with a person or persons of a particular color or race. Title VII also prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions pertaining to the abilities, traits, or the performance of persons from certain racial groups. Title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate when recruiting, hiring, and promoting, transferring, also work assignments, performance measurements, the work environment, job training, discipline and discharge this also includes wages and benefits, and anything else including condition and the privilege of employment. Title VII not only prohibits intentional discrimination, it also covers neutral job policies that disproportionately affect any person of a certain race, color, nationality that are not related to the job and the needs of the

Title VII’s fundamental underlying value of non-discrimination is represented in the Bible in many different verses, such as Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Biblegateway, 1993). As believers, we know the world is truly on race – the human race. Each and everyone of us are distinctively created by God. God does not discriminate and to do so is contrary to the worldview of a Christian. When at work, I apply this Biblical worldview to the work I do. A person’s

Mr. Dunlap successfully established a prima facie case of disparate treatment by meeting the above 3 provisions; (1) he was African-American; (2) he was qualified for the position sought; and (3) white applicants with less experience were hired for 9 of the 10 open jobs. TVA attempted to rebut his claim by offering the selection matrix used during his interview as evidence to prove that he didn’t rank as one of the top 10 applicants due to his interview scores. However, Mr. Dunlap was able to refute TVA’s claim by demonstrating that his matrix score was manipulated to keep him out of top 10, thus proving it was merely a

In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.

The Civil Rights act of 1964 along with Title VII gives employees the option to sue business owners based on color, race, sexual orientation, and religion. This act, rules on the fact, that individuals can take action if a discrimination or harassment issues happens at the employer’s workplace. It expands Civil Rights statues to provide more protection against people who are victimized due to discrimination. It sets the guidelines for job related issues due to disparate impact or treatment issues. However, this act does not assure that everyone who faces discrimination will be employed because frankly he is a minority. If it is felt that there is a possibility of

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

Discrimination occurs when an employee suffers from unfavorable or unfair treatment due to their race, religion, national origin, disabled or veteran status, or other legally protected characteristics. Employees who have suffered reprisals for opposing workplace discrimination or for reporting violations to the authorities are also considered to be discriminated against. Federal law prohibits discrimination in work-related areas, such as recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. (employeeissues.com, 2006)