Yes, it is clear to me how and why the judge was able to include those who were not specificity directed by the company’s actions to be included in the outcome of the ruling. Title VII was put in place to help protect minorities in the workplace and those in search of employment. This Act which was passed in 1964, prohibits discriminations in regards to the process of hiring, firing, and training, promoting and disciple along with the advertisement of open positions. This Act also includes any workplace decisions that are based on an employees or an applicant’s race, gender, national origin, or religion. The Title VII Act goes as far as including hiring, pay, and the terms of employment, available training layoffs and benefits. The Local 28 Steel Metal Workers had their hiring and promotion system worded and set up so that only white males would be interested, accepted and feel comfortable in applying for the apprenticeship position along with the ability to move up the union ladder into the union and journeymen position. The goal of the apprenticeship was to find themselves in the local 28 union. This process was set to up to discourage minority’s (specifically black males) from applying. Thus the sheet metal group local 28 was not only in violation of the Title VII Act but also the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), The court system (attempted) to step in to make the sheet metal workers union of local 28 compliant with the (EEOC) and the Title VII Act without success as eighteen years the steel workers were still not compliant with the courts orders.…
The facts in the case of Thompson V North American Stainless, LP 562 U.S._ (2011) are fairly straightforward. The petitioner in this case, Eric Thompson, was seemingly fired from his job at North American Stainless (NAS) because his fiancée, Miriam Regalado filed a sexual discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). His suit was filed under Title VII claiming that his dismissal was retaliation for his fiancée’s charge. (Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Magid, Reed, & Shedd, n.d.)…
The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of color, as well as national origin, sex, religion. This law applies to any employers with 15 or more employees including the local state, government, employment agencies, labor organizations and federal government jobs.…
The legal issue in this case is about David Dunlap the plaintiff who has been faced with discrimination on the basis of race in the interview at Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) during the employment process of this company. Mr. Dunlap is an African American man whom has worked for many years as foreman through contract for the union. He has worked as a contractor with the union at Tennessee Authority as a boiler man for over twenty years including fifteen years as a foreman. He has applied for employment at TVA numerous times since 1970 and was not once offered an interview. Mr. Dunlap has established that regardless of experience and during the hiring development, the company has allowed racial favoritism. The court has to recognize if the business is legally responsible under title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 for racial bias with intent. Mr. Dunlap has claimed the case under disparate impact and disparate treatment investigation. (Walsh, 2010)…
This Act protects individuals from unfair labor practices such as discrimination with regards to race, sex, or religion. In addition to prohibiting employment discrimination Title VII also prohibits harassment and a hostile work environment. It was the violation of Title VII with regards to sexual harassment that facilitated the legal action of Beth Ann Faragher against her employer the Parks and Recreation Department of the City of Boca Raton, Florida. Because of the civil rights act, Faragher was able to take the city to court and share what happened to her. Unfortunately all your able to do is take people like this to court and hope for the best. But the city of Boca Raton feels that they did nothing wrong because they 're not the ones who did the offense but they are the ones who re wrote the law in that department.…
Based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 employers are not allowed to discriminate against a potential employee based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. In the Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority case this title of the civil rights act was violated. An African American man named David Dunlap who gave almost the exact same answers as white candidates who got the job and who had 20 years of experience in boiler making was not chosen for any of the 10 positions available with the TVA. The issue is not only that he wasn’t hired but based on the score sheet he was highly discriminated against. When asked how many days he missed Dunlap told the employers that he never missed days unless sick or having a family emergency, two other candidates who just so happened to be white gave almost the exact same answer. On the score sheet for this question Dunlap was given a score of 3.7 while the other two potential employees were given scores of 4.2 and 5.5. Also when he was asked about how many accidents he had in the field he replied none and was given a low score but another candidate whom had at least two accidents was given a higher score than Dunlap. The issue at hand was that, his score sheet was heavily manipulated putting him in number 14 out of the 21 candidates that had applied. The top ten got hired.…
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964- Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-2) amends several sections of Title VII. In addition, section 102 of the CRA (which is printed elsewhere in this publication) amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (www.twc.state.tx.us, 2015).…
Title VII states that it is an unlawful practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Mary has now vowed to not hire ANY while males in her department after Paul made a backhand comment about why they downsized 25% of their white male workforce in order to be more HR compliant. Paul now feels that that was a wrong decision and that they should hire more white males. Also, Mary is guilty…
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unequivocally states that it is “unlawful employment practice for an employer...to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (“Title VII”). In 1984, the limits and lengths of this statutory provision were put to the test as Price Waterhouse employee Ann Hopkins filed suit against her company for discrimination in violation of Title VII. Hopkins, denied a partnership position through what she considered to be a discriminatory evaluation system, argued that her alleged lack of interpersonal skills served to her detriment solely because she was a woman.…
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 introduced the concepts of protected classes and unlawful employment practices to American business. It is unlawful under Title VII for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct. The statute applies to private sector employers with 15 or more employees and public sector employers at the federal, state, and local level. Title VII prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals on the basis of their protected status.…
Disparate treatment prohibits employers from treating applicants or employees differently because of their membership in a class protected by Title VII. The central issue is whether the employer's actions were motivated by discriminatory intent, which may be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Disparate treatment is considered intentional discrimination and the employer may not say they are discriminating. The U.S. Supreme Court has a list of indicators that leave discrimination as the only explanation when every other explanation is eliminated: (1) The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination; (2) the employer must then articulate, through admissible evidence, a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions; and (3) in order to prevail, the plaintiff must prove that the employer's stated reason is a pretext to hide discrimination. (http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G701.htm. This is called direct method - burden-shifting. In disparate treatment cases, the employer's policy is discriminatory on its face (Bennett-Alexander and Hartman, 95). McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green 411 U.S. 792 (1973) is a case that shows disparate…
The FindLaw.com suggests that, Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment in basis of race, color, sex, religion, or nationality origin. Created the equal employment opportunity commission to enforce Title VII provisions accommodation. As an employee, this law assures me a fair chance of getting employment regardless of what I look like or where I am coming from.…
According to "Aauw" (2012), “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. Title VII also applies to private and public colleges and universities, employment agencies, and labor organizations”.…
Today 's employment practices were defined by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law sanction in the year 1964 bans discrimination in employment based on religion, national origin, race, color, or gender. From the beginning, Title VII has advanced the laws regarding anti-discrimination. The laws are intended to "promote fairness, equality, and opportunity within the workplace" (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2003, p. 5). This paper will reflect on the history and evolution of Title VII and observe its impact in the working environment. This paper will also recognize the people who are protected under the Title VII act. The paper will conclude with reviewing the policies and procedures any business should have implemented to minimize Title VII claims of violations.…
In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits not only intentional job discrimination, but also employer practices that have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women. The Court held that tests and other employment practices that disproportionately screened out African American applicants for jobs at the Duke Power Company were prohibited when the tests were not shown to be job-related…