Hrm Case Rection Paper
Reaction paper #1 1. EEOC v. Brink's, Inc.
Subject: Religious clothing at work
Law: 1964 – Civil Rights Act (Title VII)
Protected classification: Religion
Protected group: Female (in this case)
In this case discrimination based on religion applies. Saying exactly, it is freedom of religion and its expression. According to Title VII of The Civil Rights Act (1964), “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Section 703). In this case the woman was discharged from her position because she refused to wear pants because of her religion. She was discharged unlawfully, as even EEOC states about this the following, “…an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies…to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons” (Section “Religious Discrimination”, EEOC Laws, Regulations, Guidance & MOUs). Taking all of these into consideration, judges should address these key points and decide in favor of the woman. 2. EEOC v. AT&T, Research Laboratories Division
Subject: Age discrimination
Law: 1967 – Age discrimination in Employment Act
Protected classification: Age
According to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967), “It shall be unlawful for an employer refuse to hire or to discharge any individual…because of such individual’s age” (Section 4). The judges should decide in favor of the 50-year old man, because the company refused to hire him not because the younger person was more qualified, but because they “really wanted a younger person”. Therefore, the company’s decision refuse to hire the old man was unlawful. 3. Alvarez v. Department of Veterans Affairs (March 6, 2003)
Subject: Not to speak Spanish in a certain area
Law: Can refer to Civil Rights Act, but judges should decide in favor of the company
Protected
Subject: Religious clothing at work
Law: 1964 – Civil Rights Act (Title VII)
Protected classification: Religion
Protected group: Female (in this case)
In this case discrimination based on religion applies. Saying exactly, it is freedom of religion and its expression. According to Title VII of The Civil Rights Act (1964), “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Section 703). In this case the woman was discharged from her position because she refused to wear pants because of her religion. She was discharged unlawfully, as even EEOC states about this the following, “…an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies…to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons” (Section “Religious Discrimination”, EEOC Laws, Regulations, Guidance & MOUs). Taking all of these into consideration, judges should address these key points and decide in favor of the woman. 2. EEOC v. AT&T, Research Laboratories Division
Subject: Age discrimination
Law: 1967 – Age discrimination in Employment Act
Protected classification: Age
According to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967), “It shall be unlawful for an employer refuse to hire or to discharge any individual…because of such individual’s age” (Section 4). The judges should decide in favor of the 50-year old man, because the company refused to hire him not because the younger person was more qualified, but because they “really wanted a younger person”. Therefore, the company’s decision refuse to hire the old man was unlawful. 3. Alvarez v. Department of Veterans Affairs (March 6, 2003)
Subject: Not to speak Spanish in a certain area
Law: Can refer to Civil Rights Act, but judges should decide in favor of the company
Protected