Case Study: Mcdonnell Douglas Corp. V. Green
Case 1: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, the Supreme Court holds that a charging party can prove unlawful discrimination indirectly by showing, for example, in a hiring case that: (1) the charging party is a member of a Title VII protected group; (2) he or she applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) the job was not offered to him or her; and (4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. If the plaintiff can prove these four elements, the employer must show a legitimate lawful reason why the individual was not hired (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2013). The employee still may prevail if he or she discredits the employer 's asserted reason for not hiring him or her. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
…show more content…
1964 outlaws discrimination by federal, state, and local employers with 15 or more employees. The purpose of Title VII is to make sure employers make employment decisions based on job qualifications and not on factors that courts and legislators have determined to be illegal. Those illegal acts include discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Bennett & Hartman, 2011).
Racial discrimination refers to unequal treatment of persons on the basis of their race or ethnicity. It can be defined as differential treatment on the basis of race that disadvantages a racial group and treatment on the basis of inadequately justified factors other than race that disadvantages a racial group. All employers can be held liable if a customer, a client, an independent contractor or another non-employee to unlawful harassment in the workplace. They should avoid any racial profiling or discrimination during the hiring process and make the application process as fair as possible. They should also encourage diversity and all levels of experiences. An employer should prevent and address discriminatory treatment to ensure all adheres to the policies. An employer should do the following for prevention: o Create or add a provision to the discrimination or harassment policy that encourages employees to report inappropriate behavior from any source includes those outside the company. o Train managers in the implementation of the anti-discrimination policy with the expectation that preventions are their responsibility. They must create a fair work environment and culture in which employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation does not take place. o Establish expectations and workplace norms in which discrimination is unlawful. Case # 2: Harrell v. Donahue U.S. Postal Services was a court case where Harrell filed for religious discrimination. Harrell, Jr. is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and a former employee of the USPS. Harrell worked at the Warrensburg Post office and there were six full-time carriers who are required to work on Saturdays. Harrell requested an accommodation of not having to work on Saturdays. After Harrell failed to show for work on several Saturdays, he was terminated. Although, he did not win the case, the company could have loss this suit for not providing religious accommodations (McCarty, 2011). Title VII states that an employer must provide “reasonable accommodations” of an employee’s religious beliefs and practices. An employer can’t refuse to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observances. In these cases, an employer must alter work schedules to accommodate religious holidays (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2013). This can go or against the employer. First an employer must reasonably accommodate their employee’s that does not cause undue hardships for the employer. If an employee needs a particular day off each year for a religious holiday; wear a religious garb, or have a place to play; their employer should provide accommodations. Accommodations can include switching days with other employees, flexible scheduling; offer 10 hour days, 4 days a week; or have the employee use paid time off.
The courts have held that employers aren 't required to accommodate employees ' religious activities when it involves increased financial costs, transferring supervisory personnel or employees from other departments resulting in inefficiency, or discriminating against other employees or violating seniority systems.
An employer should always offer accommodation suggestions before claiming undue hardship. When an employer makes no suggestions, he or she must be able to prove that no accommodation was possible. Similarly, the employee also should cooperate with the employer in suggesting and accepting options for resolving the conflict.
Case 3: EEOC vs. Mesa systems, Inc., a Grand Junction moving and storage violated federal law with national origin on December 23, 2011. The company implemented a policy in 2006 that required the warehouse workers in Salt Lake City to communicate only in English. The employees were discriminated because they were Mexican and received verbal abuse by the supervisor, calling them “stupid Mexican or “mojado,” (SHRM, 2013). Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on bases of the national origin. National origin means ‘country of origin.’ The employees were discriminated based upon a foreign accent and/or language and were required to speak English in 2006. An employer may require employees to speak only English at all times on job if the employer meets all three of these requirements, (Bennett & Hartman, 2011). National Origin is different from other types of discrimination as it involves the following:
• An individual’s cultural or linguistic characteristics;
• The threat of deportation or examination of an immigrant worker ‘statuses
• Cultural norms
Contrary to the national origin discrimination, this also can be racial discrimination as explained in Case #1. Case 4: International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls in 1991 and addresses the issue of fetal hazards. In this case, the employer barred women of childbearing age from certain jobs due to potential harm that could occur to a fetus. The Court rules that the employer 's restriction against fertile women performing "dangerous jobs" constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII. The Court further rules that the employer 's fetal protection policy could be justified only if being able to bear children was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job. The fact that the job posed risk to fertile women does not justify barring all fertile women from the position (Riffaud, 1990). Women changing roles in society has resulted in a workplace problem. Some women who work have experienced compensation issues or related stereotypes for being a woman. One stereotype can include lifting fifty pounds or operating heavy equipment. An employee may be discriminated by being asked gender or discriminatory questions during a job interview. As always, employers should be able to address diversity in the workplace. Employers can apply reasonable standards of what is generally considered appropriate clothing to males and females in the workplace. Assigning jobs based on gender is unacceptable and employees should not be treated differently based on gender. Employers should not decline hiring genders because of logistical issues and should make the assumption that both genders are capable of doing that particular job. Also, employers should not use gender to determine pay scales for their employees who do equal work. The differences in wages should only be permitted on seniority or experiences; and then merit. Once again, proper training to employees about gender discrimination is a must. The ADA came into effect in 1992 and applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
Employees covered under this act have physical or mental impairment, or has a record of such impairment. An employee needs to demonstrate that this disability will limit major life activity such as learning, thinking, concentrating, and interacting with others, speaking, or performing tasks, (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2013).
References:
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn. & Hartman, Laura. (2011) Employment Law for Business. (7th edition.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Ivancevich, John & Konopaske, Robert. (2013). Human Resource Management (12th Edition) New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
McCarty, Chris. (4/8/2011). 8th Circuit: court Rules Religious Accommodation Create Hardship. Retrieved from: http://www.shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/8thcircuitreligio usaccommodation0411.aspx.
Riffaud, Marcelo. (1990). Fetal Protection and UAW c. Johnson Controls, Inc.: Job Opening for Barren Women Only. Fordham Law Review, Volume 58, Issue 4, Article 11. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2877&context=flr
SHRM Online Staff. (11/20/2013). Colo.: Company Settles EEOC National Origin Bias Charge. Retrieved from: http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/StateandLocalResources/Pages/Colo-Co-
Settles-EEOC-National-Origin-Bias-Charge.aspx
1964 outlaws discrimination by federal, state, and local employers with 15 or more employees. The purpose of Title VII is to make sure employers make employment decisions based on job qualifications and not on factors that courts and legislators have determined to be illegal. Those illegal acts include discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Bennett & Hartman, 2011).
Racial discrimination refers to unequal treatment of persons on the basis of their race or ethnicity. It can be defined as differential treatment on the basis of race that disadvantages a racial group and treatment on the basis of inadequately justified factors other than race that disadvantages a racial group. All employers can be held liable if a customer, a client, an independent contractor or another non-employee to unlawful harassment in the workplace. They should avoid any racial profiling or discrimination during the hiring process and make the application process as fair as possible. They should also encourage diversity and all levels of experiences. An employer should prevent and address discriminatory treatment to ensure all adheres to the policies. An employer should do the following for prevention: o Create or add a provision to the discrimination or harassment policy that encourages employees to report inappropriate behavior from any source includes those outside the company. o Train managers in the implementation of the anti-discrimination policy with the expectation that preventions are their responsibility. They must create a fair work environment and culture in which employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation does not take place. o Establish expectations and workplace norms in which discrimination is unlawful. Case # 2: Harrell v. Donahue U.S. Postal Services was a court case where Harrell filed for religious discrimination. Harrell, Jr. is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and a former employee of the USPS. Harrell worked at the Warrensburg Post office and there were six full-time carriers who are required to work on Saturdays. Harrell requested an accommodation of not having to work on Saturdays. After Harrell failed to show for work on several Saturdays, he was terminated. Although, he did not win the case, the company could have loss this suit for not providing religious accommodations (McCarty, 2011). Title VII states that an employer must provide “reasonable accommodations” of an employee’s religious beliefs and practices. An employer can’t refuse to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observances. In these cases, an employer must alter work schedules to accommodate religious holidays (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2013). This can go or against the employer. First an employer must reasonably accommodate their employee’s that does not cause undue hardships for the employer. If an employee needs a particular day off each year for a religious holiday; wear a religious garb, or have a place to play; their employer should provide accommodations. Accommodations can include switching days with other employees, flexible scheduling; offer 10 hour days, 4 days a week; or have the employee use paid time off.
The courts have held that employers aren 't required to accommodate employees ' religious activities when it involves increased financial costs, transferring supervisory personnel or employees from other departments resulting in inefficiency, or discriminating against other employees or violating seniority systems.
An employer should always offer accommodation suggestions before claiming undue hardship. When an employer makes no suggestions, he or she must be able to prove that no accommodation was possible. Similarly, the employee also should cooperate with the employer in suggesting and accepting options for resolving the conflict.
Case 3: EEOC vs. Mesa systems, Inc., a Grand Junction moving and storage violated federal law with national origin on December 23, 2011. The company implemented a policy in 2006 that required the warehouse workers in Salt Lake City to communicate only in English. The employees were discriminated because they were Mexican and received verbal abuse by the supervisor, calling them “stupid Mexican or “mojado,” (SHRM, 2013). Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on bases of the national origin. National origin means ‘country of origin.’ The employees were discriminated based upon a foreign accent and/or language and were required to speak English in 2006. An employer may require employees to speak only English at all times on job if the employer meets all three of these requirements, (Bennett & Hartman, 2011). National Origin is different from other types of discrimination as it involves the following:
• An individual’s cultural or linguistic characteristics;
• The threat of deportation or examination of an immigrant worker ‘statuses
• Cultural norms
Contrary to the national origin discrimination, this also can be racial discrimination as explained in Case #1. Case 4: International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls in 1991 and addresses the issue of fetal hazards. In this case, the employer barred women of childbearing age from certain jobs due to potential harm that could occur to a fetus. The Court rules that the employer 's restriction against fertile women performing "dangerous jobs" constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII. The Court further rules that the employer 's fetal protection policy could be justified only if being able to bear children was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job. The fact that the job posed risk to fertile women does not justify barring all fertile women from the position (Riffaud, 1990). Women changing roles in society has resulted in a workplace problem. Some women who work have experienced compensation issues or related stereotypes for being a woman. One stereotype can include lifting fifty pounds or operating heavy equipment. An employee may be discriminated by being asked gender or discriminatory questions during a job interview. As always, employers should be able to address diversity in the workplace. Employers can apply reasonable standards of what is generally considered appropriate clothing to males and females in the workplace. Assigning jobs based on gender is unacceptable and employees should not be treated differently based on gender. Employers should not decline hiring genders because of logistical issues and should make the assumption that both genders are capable of doing that particular job. Also, employers should not use gender to determine pay scales for their employees who do equal work. The differences in wages should only be permitted on seniority or experiences; and then merit. Once again, proper training to employees about gender discrimination is a must. The ADA came into effect in 1992 and applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
Employees covered under this act have physical or mental impairment, or has a record of such impairment. An employee needs to demonstrate that this disability will limit major life activity such as learning, thinking, concentrating, and interacting with others, speaking, or performing tasks, (Ivancevich & Konopaske, 2013).
References:
Bennett-Alexander, Dawn. & Hartman, Laura. (2011) Employment Law for Business. (7th edition.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
Ivancevich, John & Konopaske, Robert. (2013). Human Resource Management (12th Edition) New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.
McCarty, Chris. (4/8/2011). 8th Circuit: court Rules Religious Accommodation Create Hardship. Retrieved from: http://www.shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/8thcircuitreligio usaccommodation0411.aspx.
Riffaud, Marcelo. (1990). Fetal Protection and UAW c. Johnson Controls, Inc.: Job Opening for Barren Women Only. Fordham Law Review, Volume 58, Issue 4, Article 11. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2877&context=flr
SHRM Online Staff. (11/20/2013). Colo.: Company Settles EEOC National Origin Bias Charge. Retrieved from: http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/StateandLocalResources/Pages/Colo-Co-
Settles-EEOC-National-Origin-Bias-Charge.aspx