Person J was an employee of a Pizza company N. The GM of N harassed J sexually and racially. J complained this to the shift leader and assistant manager, but they didn’t report it because they were sub-ordinate to the GM. Then, J complained to the employer who had authority over GM which resulted in the termination of GM within four days. J filed a suit to impose liability on the employer for the conduct of GM. To find: The best defense available to N.

Question

Mohamed Arafi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Morocco, works as a valet dry cleaner for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C. In December 2010, a supervisor allegedly prohibited Arab or Muslim workers from going on floors occupied by a delegation of Israeli diplomats. The supervisor allegedly told Arafi, “You know how the Israelis are with Arabs and Muslims.” Arafi says he complied with his supervisor’s instructions but consequently lost out on tips. He subsequently complained to another supervisor and the hotel’s director of human resources. Arafi says his work hours were cut, and that his colleagues said demeaning things about Muslims to him after the incident became known to them. Arafi brought suit under Title VII, alleging disparate treatment resulting in an adverse employment action (the loss of tips), as well as retaliation. The Mandarin Hotel claimed a national security exemption. Would either of Arafi’s claims be successful? Would the Hotel’s? [Arafi v. Mandarin…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 21, Problem 7BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person J was an employee of a Pizza company N. The GM of N harassed J sexually and racially. J complained this to the shift leader and assistant manager, but they didn’t report it because they were sub-ordinate to the GM. Then, J complained to the employer who had authority over GM which resulted in the termination of GM within four days. J filed a suit to impose liability on the employer for the conduct of GM.

To find:The best defense available to N.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Mohamed Arafi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Morocco, works as a valet dry cleaner for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C. In December 2010, a supervisor allegedly prohibited Arab or Muslim workers from going on floors occupied by a delegation of Israeli diplomats. The supervisor allegedly told Arafi, “You know how the Israelis are with Arabs and Muslims.” Arafi says he complied with his supervisor’s instructions but consequently lost out on tips. He subsequently complained to another supervisor and the hotel’s director of human resources. Arafi says his work hours were cut, and that his colleagues said demeaning things about Muslims to him after the incident became known to them. Arafi brought suit under Title VII, alleging disparate treatment resulting in an adverse employment action (the loss of tips), as well as retaliation. The Mandarin Hotel claimed a national security exemption. Would either of Arafi’s claims be successful? Would the Hotel’s? [Arafi v. Mandarin…

Employee, a Muslim, is a management trainee at an airport car rental office. As part of her religious practice, employee wears a hijab (headscarf). She is told by her supervisor that the hijab does not match the uniforms she is required to wear, so she must stop wearing them or be transferred to another position with less customer interaction. Employee was later terminated as part of a company cutback. She sues for religious discrimination. Does she win?

Lisa applied and interviewed for a manager position at her company and was not selected. She was not given any feedback from the interview, Tony her male coworker was selected for the position. Lisa felt the promotion was unfair, since she had more seniority than Tony, and decided to file a gender discrimination and play with her local equal opportunity commissioner the EEOC investigated the complaint, and did not find any evidence of discrimination. Both Lisa and Tony’s employment was in good standing however, Tony had passed managerial experience, which was listed as a requirement on the job. This aspect, then made him a strong, stronger candidate for the job than Lisa, who had more seniority, but lacked the experience and the next several months, Lisa noticed the change from her manager prior to the complaint being filled he was very personable towards her and often made small talk around the office. After the complaint he was very short with her, and did not engage in any small…