Fsb Vs Vinson Case Summary

Meritor Savings Bank, FSB Vs. Vinson

A female bank employee alleged claims of sexual harassment from her male supervisor. Her claims included that her supervisor fondle her and made sexual demands suggesting fear that she would lose her job. After being terminated she filed a lawsuit under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the bank and her former supervisor. The supervisor denied the claims and stated all advances were voluntary. The court took the position of the petitioner, although she did not properly report the offense. Ideally, employees should report all sexual harassment incidents with their supervisor; however, in this situation a supervisor was involved so there was no other outlet submit the incident to. On behalf of all organizations it is important for organizations to offer more than one outlet to report unlawful acts in the workplace. For instance, providing a service hotline where employees feel comfortable to report workplace incidents can eliminate the middle man properly bring justice to
specific party.

Sutton Vs. United Airlines

Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton are identical twins who suffer from acute visual myopia. Myopia is a common type of refractive error where close objects appear clearly, but distant objects appear blurry (NEI). Both sisters applied for airline pilot positions. When neither of them were hired they filed a lawsuit claiming United Airlines refused to hire them due to their uncorrected vision being worse than 20/100. Under the American Disabilities Act of 1990, the Sutton sisters claimed they suffered a physical impairment that substantially limits major life activities. The court ruled in favor of United Airlines as the company did not fail to consider them for the pilot position based on their vision. I believe the courts sided with United Airlines because the Sutton sisters did not provide concrete information that were judged based on their vision impairment. If the Sutton sisters could support this claim the case would have probably played out differently.

Miller Vs. Raytheon Co.

Richard Miller worked for Raytheon Company for many years.
During his 2007 mid-year review it was noted that he missed a few deadlines and was evaluated as “needs improvement”. In early 2008, Raytheon initiated a RIF (reduction in force) which involved Robert Lyells, Richard’s line manager, to evaluate his employees and determine where the reduction will occur. Miller was included in the recommendation to be laid off after Lyells determined his job function was nonessential. Among the other employees, included in the RIF were all older than forty. The company’s human resource department offered to further counsel Miller by finding him another job within the company, however no jobs were available. Miller felt that since he received a “needs improvement” rating it would be almost impossible for him to stay with the company. Additionally, Miller wanted to return to his old team, supply chain, however HR insinuated that he would not be
considered.

Miller affirmed that Raytheon terminated based on his age, and was willing to file a lawsuit displaying evidence that the company discriminated him based on age. Under the ADEA, Age Discrimination Employment Act, prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against any individual because of their age (Achille, 2013). The court ruled in favor of Mr. Miller stating that, “Even if Raytheon superficially applied its non-discriminatory RIF standards to Miller, the 5th Circuit stated that there was "considerable circumstantial evidence" that Raytheon went out of its way to avoid rehiring Miller” (Achille, 2013). In my opinion, I feel the courts decide with Mr. Miller because the organization did not its part in providing smooth transition for him. Being involuntary terminated is never an easy thing, however it is the employer’s responsibilities to ensure that they offer transitional services for these employees; which should include career development, benefits, and a severance package.