Valley Memorial Hospital Case Summary

• Discrimination by perception: direct discrimination against someone because others think they have a protected characteristic (even if they don't).

Disability- many people suffer from discrimination when they have a disability. This is because they are different from others and can not physically do the things others can. This leaves them left out, not been able to socialize and feeling upset. For example if there was a man in a wheel chair in an office with his work colleges and everyone ignored him because he was different this would be discrimination.

Another law the plant may be violating is the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This law “forbids discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Noe, Hollenback, Gerhart & Wright, 2011). According to the case, the plant employs approximately 1,500 workers and one third of the workforce is Hispanic (Fransson, Gareett & Noll, 2005). The plant mostly hires Hispanic to

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.

Many of us have worked in job environment that were less than ideal and probably thought about quitting our jobs on a daily basis. Do you ever wonder what it was like before the laws were written and implemented that prevented your boss from discriminating against you and other coworkers? Well I can without a doubt say that I would not have want a job before the 1964 Congress enacted the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

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).

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

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 treatment is the unlawful treatment of individuals that violates Title VII rights. The Different treatment of a plaintiff relies on direct, comparative, and circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of persuasion (Roberts, 2010). When individuals complain, they have been treated differently due to their protected class. They are claiming the organization has discriminated against them. For instance, this employee may state the firm only hires males at this facility. Upon investigation, the employer learns that the ratio of workers who are men is greater than women. At this point, the company may explain why the reason for hiring males is higher since women cannot perform these tasks as it may affect their well-being. Nevertheless,

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

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.

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

The external stakeholders are the community, patients, MedKey System members, CMS, HMOs (ie. Blue Cross Blue Shield and Tri-Care), and any other private insurances (Richards & Slovensky, 2004). Medicare reimbursement in Alabama was the lowest rate in the nation. This was a constant struggle for the hospital administrators to try to operate on such low reimbursements for their services, which is a threat. Eighty percent of patients were Medicare or Blue Cross in which there was difficulty-negotiating prices with Blue Cross due to monopoly. Buyers have high bargaining power as reimbursements rates are low from Medicare and Blue Cross held monopoly in the services area so negotiating prices was difficult. Suppliers have lower bargaining power due to low Medicare reimbursements and difficulty negotiating prices with Blue

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.