You Be the Judge Essay

I was impressed with the oral argument of Vance V. Ball State University case. When I first listened to the oral argument I gained a clear understanding as to why petitioner Vance reason where for filing a lawsuit. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; make it unconstitutional for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC, n.d., para. 1). Due to the power that businesses needed to fire workers spontaneously, government and federal laws have been set up to guarantee that purposes behind end are defended and that separation does not assume a part in one's capacity to keep up their occupation (Szypszak,

After reviewing the data it is apparent the promotional rate of women in managerial positions when compared to the men is disproportional to the size of the population. This shows disparate treatment, the company hires women, but women do not promote at the same pace as men. This shows strong evidence of discrimination and if not resolved will lead to a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

First, the legal issues, in this case, are The Equal Employment Opportunity Commision filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the Dial Corporation. The court decided that Dial Corporation did nothing wrong and there were no legal erras on the conclusions or liabilities.

In what may be the most bewildering court ruling ever produced, “The court held that the complainant’s refusal to have sexual relations with her supervisor, and the resulting elimination of her job, was not discrimination. Rather it was due to ‘the subtleties of an inharmonious personal relationship’” (Gregg, pg. 304,

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,

The court should take a look at what the partners said like, “she was sometimes overly aggressive” (Nkomo, Fottler, McAfee, 7 edition, p. 57). The judge should rule in favor of Thelma Jones because she is being sexually discriminated. The employer did in fact discriminate unlawfully because you’re not allowed to tell a woman to be more “femininely” just to get a higher position.

The United States Supreme Court, as well as federal district and state courts, defines employee rights and an employer’s liability for employment law violations. Treatment on the job, including hiring, firing, and promotions, must be based on qualifications and merit and not on race, gender, age, sexual preference or how one responds to sexual advances. Yet despite these laws and policies, many employees continue to suffer from workplace harassment and employment discrimination.

• The fact that Anita said that the plaintiff will probably get job with the fact that the plaintiff had performance evaluation than the younger woman awarded the promotion led the plaintiff to expend emotional and financial recourses pursuing this ADEA claim in federal court. (Twomey, 2010, pg. 525)However, when analyzed by the court under a “direct evidence of discrimination “theory and under the McDonnell Douglas model, she had no case. (Twomey, 2010, pg. 525)

VA Empl. Comm’n, 1997 Va. App. LEXIS 178 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 1997). (citing Umbarger v. Virginia Empl. Comm’n, 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Va. Ct. App. 1990)). In Gardner v. Hercules the court found that an employee who becomes dissatisfied with their work environment must pursue every available option to alleviate or correct the environment before he or she can quit her job. Gardner v. Hercules, Inc., 1996 Va. App. LEXIS 22 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 1996). Furthermore in Smith v. S.W. Rodgers the plaintiff was sexually harassed by direct managers. Smith v. S.W. Rogers Co., 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 436 (Va. Ct. App. July 20, 1999). Plaintiff complained to other managers that were on the same level as the manager who were sexually harassing her, but not to higher management for fear of retaliation. Id. However, plaintiff finally reported it, but decided not to return to work. The court found that although her sexual assault claim was legitimate, the plaintiff had not allowed the situation to resolve prior to quitting and therefore she did not quit with good cause. Id. In order to find “good cause” the court looks for factors or circumstances which

A fortiori, the employer may act peremptorily, arbitrarily, or inconsistently, without providing specific protections such as prior warning, fair procedures, objective evaluation, or preferential reassignment." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 350, 100 Cal. Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089.)

The process of following a case according to court rules is known as litigation. In the current American workplace there many disputes which cannot go an ignored, it is evident that compassion and common sense in the workplace has been replaced. Employees, business managers and any other person in the workplace should importantly abide by all laws and regulations to protect the organization. It is unlawful as well as immoral to deny a person opportunity basing on his race, sexual orientation and colour. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has to act within their mandate. The Human Resource Department should facilitate this by setting up a structured net in which these laws will be enforced in the workplace to ensure the safety,

1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon appealed her case against her employer, Champion Jogbra, on the grounds of wrongful termination. The company’s progressive policy for disciplinary action was not applied. Therefore, Dillon makes her claim that her at will status was modified according to the employee handbook and practices. Employee’s handbook should be written clearly and reviewed by legal experts (Walsh, 2010). Champion Jogbra countered that Dillon was an at-will employee and she could be terminated at any time. Dillon also, argues against that the

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.

The plaintiff can argue that these were the conditions that were used when she was hired. She sought out this job because she was offered great career opportunities but was never given the “career” or the opportunity to make $30,000 annually. This could be classified under intentional misrepresentation or fraud because the plaintiff was brought into the business with false statements. Something else that Elaine can argue is that she was discriminated. After she was fired, she was replaced by a man that had less job experience and a lower education than Elaine. Elaine might have been let go because of her sex. This could be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

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]