Preview

Eeoc Paper

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1043 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Eeoc Paper
EEOC Paper

The purpose of this paper is to go over a lawsuit that was filled by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The paper will cover who the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is and their role in the lawsuit. It will go over whether or not the lawsuit promotes social change. The paper will also go over how the EEOC as well as other news groups released information about the case to the public. I will then give my take on how I would implement new strategies to make sure the problem does not come up in the workplace again.
A description of the compliance issue that led to the lawsuit The lawsuit that I have chosen is about a company not hiring someone because of their race. Tyeastia Green sued Alliant Techsystems, Inc. (ATK) because they did not hire her due to her race. A recruiter for ATK initially told her that she had gotten the job, later ATK rejected her and hired a while male instead ("U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission", 2012).
A brief Summary of the functions of the EEOC According to "U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" (2012), "the EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information” (Aerospace and Defense Manufacturer Rejected Applicant on Racial Grounds, Federal Agency Charged). The EEOC investigates charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Their role is the fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and make a finding. The EEOC also works to prevent discrimination before it happens by offering education and technical assistance programs.
The EEOC’s role in this lawsuit The EEOC’s role in the lawsuit was to find out whether or not the claim was valid. Once they decided that the claim was valid, they tried



References: U.S. Equall Employment Opportunity Commission. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-27-12b.cfm Stych, E. (2012). Mineapolis St. Paul Business Journal. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2011/09/29/atk-sued-eeoc-for-racial-discrimination.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The court said that that the EEOC trumped the arbitration contract between the employee and the employer because the EEOC was not a party to the contract but had independent statutory authority to bring a suit to the court.…

    • 301 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The issue: Plaintiff Anucha Brown Sanders is suing defendants MSG, Isiah Lord Thomas, and James Dolan, alleging that she was discriminated on the basis of her sex and terminated in retaliation for her sexual harassment complaint against MSG and Thomas. MSG counterclaimed against plaintiff for breach of fiduciary duty.…

    • 403 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Lilly Ledbetter was one of the very few female supervisors at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Alabama, and she worked at that plant for nineteen years, from 1979 till her retirement in 1998. Initially, when she started working for the company, her pay was equal to that of the other male supervisors. However, as time passed the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: the lowest she received was $3,727 per month, while the lowest paid male received $4,286. Thus, after realizing this Mrs. Ledbetter filed an official complaint before the EEOC in March 1998, stating that Goodyear violated the Title VII as they paid her a discriminatory low salary due to her sex. After she filed an official complaint, her case went to trial, and the jury concluded that the pay disparity was due to intentional discrimination. However, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the jury verdict, as it claimed Mrs. Ledbetter’s’ case was not filed in time, as the original discriminatory pay decision occurred before the statutory limitations of 180 days.…

    • 751 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case of Wittenburg v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. (AEFA), Bonnie Wittenburg was an employee for AEFA in their Minneapolis office. The plaintiff was hired by the company in November of 1998 at the age of forty-six to serve as an Equity Research Analyst in AEFA's Equity Investment Department. During a reduction in force by the defendant in 2003, the plaintiff was terminated. In January of 2004, the plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received her Notice of Right to Sue on January 30, 2004. The plaintiff filed suit on February 13, 2004 alleging that she was discriminated and retaliated against by the defendant as a result of her age and gender. AEFA moved for a summary judgment.…

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.)…

    • 567 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In the case of Hampton v. Snead State Community College (SSCC), the one element that Hampton failed to establish of a prima facie case of racial discrimination was the forth element in the case. The forth element in the case stated, “SSCC treated similarly situated employees outside of Hampton's protected class more favorably” (Hampton). According to the court, Hampton failed to establish the prima facie case of bring substantial evidence of employees of another race who were tried fairly. The plaintiff brought evidence of three colleagues, also coaches, who were White (Adam Rhoden, Steve Machen, and Gerry Ledbetter) who engaged in misconduct and were not demoted or transferred to another division. However, the first two coaches that Hampton supplied, as evidence to the court did not suffice because both coaches, Rhoden and Machen, incident involved another athletic director than whom the plaintiff was suing. The third coach involved in the evidence, Coach Ledbetter, was also deemed an insufficient example because Ledbetter’s misconduct was different than that of the plaintiff. Therefore, since the plaintiff was not able to cover the final element of a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the plaintiff request of summary judgment was denied.…

    • 1376 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Eeoc Vs Freeman Case Brief

    • 1279 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Since the Defendant claimed the background investigation policies were multi-step processes that involved “different types of checks depending on the specific job and individual was seeking, consideration of both subjection and objective criteria, and examination of a long list of faction, any one of which might control the ultimate employment decision”; the EEOC also argued it was unfeasible, not meaningful, and unnecessary to examine each sub-factor separately. Furthermore, the EEOC argued that Defendant provided error data and finally caused many alleged errors in Murphy’s dataset. Later, Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s reply brief included “new” evidence and “new” arguments, so the EEOC should be allowed to file a…

    • 1279 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    However, no statements made by any party during the conciliation process can be used in any subsequent lawsuit. The conciliation process is not a prerequisite for an individual to file a lawsuit in state or federal court. Under the ADEA, the employee must merely wait 60 days after filing a charge with the EEOC and the appropriate state agency before filing a lawsuit against the employer. Title VII and the ADA require the EEOC to issue a "Notice of Right to Sue," also known as a "right to sue letter," before an individual can file a suit in court. The right to sue letter can be issued at the complaining party's request or by the EEOC following its disposition of a discrimination charge. The employee has 90 days after receiving the right to sue letter to file…

    • 4069 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Employers must understand that the persons who evaluate and decide the outcome of employment discrimination cases (the EEOC investigator, federal or state judge, and/or jury) have keen senses of fairness and expect that employees will be treated in a fair manner. As a result, employers are exposed to substantial liability for any acts, including perceived acts, of discrimination in the workplace. Employers should take any charge of discrimination seriously and the employer must keep in mind that, at a minimum, it needs to have a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for taking the action in question. In addition, an employer's response will be evaluated by persons who have a different perspective than the employer. What…

    • 964 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    EEOC stands for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Is a federal agency created to guard employees in the workroom from discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, national origin, pregnancy, disability or genetic information. It also warrants that employees receive equal pay and defends victims of sexual harassment. The EEOC has 180 days from the day someone filed out a complaint to finish their investigation. The investigation may be prolonged by another 180 days if new events are added to your complaint. If the process goes right you can either request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or ask the agency to issue a decision as to whether discrimination occurred. Once you ask for a hearing, the grievance will be handled by an EEOC…

    • 707 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may take action when an investigation shows that there has been a violation in a person’s civil rights just because of his or her attributes.…

    • 2010 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The EEOC has the power to investigate complaints of employment discrimination and can sue firms that practice discrimination.…

    • 1126 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission started in 1964 after the Civil Rights Act. One year after President Johnson he signed the civil right act into law the EEOC opened their doors. The EEOC protects the employment for everyone.They protect people with: Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Nondiscrimination Information Act. The EEOC headquarters was established in Washington, D.C. It is the Federal Government's primary civil rights agency. Here is a timeline:…

    • 256 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays