Color Discrimination Case Summary

Issue: The issue, in this case, is whether color discrimination was affected by light- skinned and dark-skinned people of the same race.
Rule: According to (Moran, 2014), color discrimination, is based on shade, complexion or pigmentation such as dark or light skinned individual. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is illegal to discriminate of color at the same ethnic group and as well as dissimilar complexions (Moran, 2014).
Analysis: In this case analysis the facts point out that Walker and Lewis are the same race. Walk complexion was lighter and Lewis and for this season Walker feels that Lewis was falsely scrutinized her work. Previously, Walker’s previous supervisor had noted that her job performance was above level (Walker v.
Sec. of the Treasury, IRS, 1990). Initially was discharged based on the report that was stated by Lewis, of being lazy, tardiness and incompetence which was position in which her termination was affected by (Moran, 2014).
Argument: The argument of whether color discrimination that occurred between two people with the same race with the different color that is baseless in this case. Lewis originally had written proof Walker job performance, she was not promptly working up to her standards (Walker v. Sec. of the Treasury, IRS, 1990).Furthermore, Walker co-workers had reported about her work deficiencies to Lewis and the disagreement in which the court had specified that conflicts do not necessarily discriminate actions (Walker v. Sec. of the Treasury, IRS, 1990).
Counterargument: In the counterargument of whether color discrimination exists between people of the same skin tones and same race in which was opposed in this case.
Lewis, prejudiced remarks against Walker because of her skin color. Also, the court documents stated Lewis belittling comments towards Walker (Walker v. Sec. of the Treasury, IRS, 1990). Lastly, witnesses had also testified in accordance that darker-skinned blacks have more inferiority dealing with light skinned people which can result in prejudicial treatment (Walker v. Sec. of the Treasury, IRS, 1990, para. 49)”.
Conclusion: In concluding, based on the case study, color discrimination was a factor but also I strongly believed Walker job performance was a major factor in this whole analysis. Walker, however, was counseled on many occasion
Due to the fact that Ms. Walker was counseled on several occasion and also was given in writing her job expectation, I conclude that she was not performing to standards. The brief indicated that Ms. Lewis also reprimanded other workers under her supervision when they were not meeting standards. It appears that personality conflict and poor job performance served as the catalyst to Ms. Walker’s
termination.