ESSAY #1 EEOC CASE
Yesterday’s Pub & Grille Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination
Summary
The title of the case selected is “Yesterday’s Pub & Grille Sued by EEOC for Disability Discrimination”. The case was reported in the EEOC press release section on February 11th, 2016. According to the press release, Sappyann, Inc., which operates Yesterday’s Pub & Grill restaurant violated federal law by discriminating against an employee (“Yesterday’s Pub,” 2016). The restaurant refused to hire him due to his HIV positive status. As a result, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged a lawsuit against the company.
The applicant’s name is Aubrey Hawkins and he was asked about a medical discharge from the military during his interview with the owner of the pub and he disclosed that he has immunodeficiency. After this interview he was directed to return to work the next day and was given all the necessary paperwork. When Hawkins went to the restaurant the next day, he was asked more questions about his immunodeficiency by the owner of the restaurant. Hawkins disclosed he has HIV and based on this the owner canceled the job offered stating it was not safe for Hawkins to work around food. Even though Hawkins provided information showing that it was save for him
…show more content…
The main purpose of the act is to protect employees from discrimination based on their disabilities. It prohibits discrimination based on disability in all employment practices, such as job application procedures, hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, and training (Noe, Gerhart, Hollenbeck, & Wright, 2015). In this case, the file was valid because the discrimination was performed during the hiring process and the sole reason of the job denial was the applicant’s HIV. The applicant should have been given the opportunity to person the job regardless of this
Contagious diseases such as HIV+ and AIDS are considered conditions of being disabled (DeCenzo & Robbins 2005). An alcoholic is a person with a disability and is protected by the ADA if he or she is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). However, an employer can discipline, discharge or deny employment to an alcoholic whose use of alcohol adversely affects job performance or conduct. An employer may also prohibit the use of alcohol in the workplace and require that employees not be under the influence of alcohol. Individuals, discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with a person with a disability, are also protected under the ADA (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). For example, this provision would protect a person whose spouse has a disability from being denied employment because of an employer's unfounded assumption that the applicant would use excessive leave to care for the spouse.
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?
The following essay describes discrimination lawsuits brought up against the Hooters restaurant chain. Employees in Michigan filed suit and said they were discriminated for being overweight while employed as servers. According to Leanne Convery, who was one of the women who fired, she weighed 115 pounds at the time and four-feet-eleven at the time. She was encouraged to take stimulants such as Adderall and appetite suppressants to speed up weight loss (Foley, 2010). Hooters found a way to navigate the discrimination laws using bona fide occupation qualifications (BFOQ).
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,
This case is about a group of women who were discriminated against based on their gender. The lawsuit was put into the hands of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) after a group of Latino women that worked for Rivera Vineyard, Inc. reported multiple complaints. Those involved included Rivera Vineyards Company employees that consist of Latino female workers, male workers, and male managers. Most of the Latino farm workers suffering victimization were females, there were also some males. These males were targeted because of their attempt to speak up on behalf of the harassed females.
My reason for saying that is there is really no indication as to how qualified the applicant was for the actual job. A question that immediately came in to my mind was if the applicant was a good fit for the job? If she did not need the modifications in the office would she be hired? Were there more qualified applicants? I know this scenario was put in place to display and make us students analyze the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 but personally just because you have a disability does not mean you should be granted a job and vice versa. Honestly this is a very broad scenario that focuses on the handicap and not the actual talents of the person.
Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.
In addition to the ANA ethical principles, the Americans with Disabilities Act (1996) protects qualified individuals against discrimination in job application procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge,
Charges of workplace discrimination is said to be at an all time high. During the 2015 fiscal year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity released information that claims there were more than 89,000 charges filed for workplace discrimination. One of the top ten charges is said to be retaliation, which had an estimate 39,757 cases in 2015, which is 44.5 percent of all charges filed. Retaliation is said to be in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, For the purpose of this research paper I will provide the understanding of both Acts, while also taking a case that deals with to provide the basis of the case, the findings, and the outcome of the charges.
Plaintiff, Deborah Burke, submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant Strickland Watson Pierce, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should not be dismissed because she exhausted all the administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and being terminated during the investigation. Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009); Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corr., 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001); Franceschi v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2008). Further, the conduct she suffered in the workplace was sufficiently severe to qualify as a sexually hostile environment. The Court should deny the motion.
The District Court erred in granting summary judgment for Friendly Grocers. The plain language of the ADA mandates reasonable accommodation requires reassignment to a vacant position. Under the 42 U.S.C § 12112(a), employers have duty to not discriminate against any individuals with a disability. (cite) The statute takes one step further by stating that the employers have duty to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee which includes reassignment of the employee to a vacant position for which the disabled is qualified.(cite)
We human beings get discriminated for not only the things we do and the things we wear, but even for where we work. Sadly , this is not new news. We all most likely not just witness this discrimination daily, but probably are guilty of making those stereotypical judgment ourselves as well, because it’s not the “normal” trend of today’s society. But Joey Franklin, who is the narrator in his story Working at Wendy’s, brings us a new perspective within the fast food industry.
This writer will be discussing a case where a male employee files a sexual harassment claim against the employer as the male employee identifies as being gay. He also is filing discrimination on the basis of his gender and alleges retaliation as he was terminated after he had complained about his female coworker. Apparently, the male employee alleged that a female employee while at a dinner and concert after work hours grabbed his privates. It is important to note that the male employee’s performance prior to the incident was declining and was counseled on several occasions by his employer about his declining production. Furthermore, this writer will be discussing whether if the facts could result in liability to the employer for sexual harassment or gender discrimination. Also, this writer will be integrating and referring to various sources and cases that
Issue: Is New England Telephone guilty of discrimination against Paul Cronan strictly because he has a disease that is disabling called HIV/AIDS?