Preview

Legal

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2378 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Legal
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE

CASE
Summary of Patricia Pitts v. Wild Adventures, Inc.
In this case, a plaintiff is Patricia Pitts who is an African-American female. And the defendant is Wild Adventures, Inc. that operates a theme park in Valdosta, Georgia. The plaintiff claims race discrimination and unlawful retaliation Under Title VII and U.S. Code Section 1981 based on the defendant’s grooming policy prohibiting dreadlock and cornrow hairstyles, the defendant’s failure to promote plaintiff to Guest Services Manager, and defendant’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment. The complaint of plaintiff moreover contains a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on her manager saying her hairstyle was not being pretty, defendant’s failure to promote the plaintiff and decision to terminate her employment. The court’s finding that there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim. “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
The legal principles
The plaintiff filed a charge against the defendant under Title VII and U.S. Code Section 1981. Title VII protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color as well as national origin, sex, or religion. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private contracts. There are two theories of discrimination recognized under Title VII. Disparate treatment occurs when employee show different treatment based on the individual 's protected group membership and specific evidence of discrimination against a specific individual. Intentional infliction of emotional distress: Must be extreme and outrageous, “utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” must be intentional or reckless, must cause emotional distress and must be so severe that no reasonable person could endure it.
Discuss the essential facts
Defendant Wild Adventures Inc. operated a theme park. Plaintiff Patricia Pitts was an African-American female who



Cited: Case 7:06-cv-00062-HL Document 26. THE DISTRICT COURT. 25 Apr. 2008. Print. ANGELA ONWUACHI-WILLIG. "Another Hair Piece: Exploring New Strands of Analysis Under Title VII." THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL (n.d.): 1079-1131. Print Parker, Wendy. "LESSONS IN LOSING: RACE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT." Copyright (c) 2006 University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law Review (2006): n. pag. Print.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming that she was sexually assaulted and beaten by hospital employees while she was hospitalized. The defendants were granted a dismissal of the case for non pros. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff failed to meet her requirement to file a certificate of merit within 60 days. As a result, the Court of Common Pleas,…

    • 688 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This law prohibits employers from discriminating their employees on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, and national origin. Since Mrs. Ledbetter was paid significantly less than her male employees at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. it is evident that she felt she was a victim of gender discrimination, and thus filed a complaint against Goodyear for violating the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights…

    • 751 Words
    • 4 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 difficult part of this case to determine is whether Thompson’s suit is covered within Title VII. Initially, the District Court ruled that Title VII “does not permit third party retaliation claims”. But if the termination of Thompson’s employment was a retaliatory act for the charge filed by his fiancée, Shouldn’t Thompson be protected? Another question to ask is, “Would Regalado have filed the charge if she knew it would have gotten her fiancé fired?” The issue in this…

    • 567 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of color, as well as national origin, sex, religion. This law applies to any employers with 15 or more employees including the local state, government, employment agencies, labor organizations and federal government jobs.…

    • 1102 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    (a) It shall be an unlawfulemploymentpractice for an employer(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to dischargeany individual,or otherwiseto discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,terms, conditions, or…

    • 9192 Words
    • 37 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Final Exam

    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages

    TCO D) PuttingPeople2Work has a growing business placing out-of-work MBAs. They claim they can place a client in a job in their field in less than 36 weeks. You are given the following data from a sample.…

    • 1601 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Vaughn Case Brief

    • 3486 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Plaintiff-Appellant Emma S. Vaughn contests the judgment rendered in favor of defendant Texaco, Inc., dismissing with prejudice Vaughn's race and sex discrimination suit filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq. Because the magistrate clearly erred in finding no racial discrimination, we reverse.…

    • 3486 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the beginning the Civil Rights of 1964 was the foundation in which the vast architecture of discrimination was erected. Title VII of this act dealing with the discrimination in the workplace, imposed a broad range of prohibitions but Section 703(a) is the heart of Title VII which according to Myers, J.D. (2002) states, (1)"It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee; because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) governs the enforcement of Title VII. First and foremost Title VII was intended to address racial…

    • 893 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 introduced the concepts of protected classes and unlawful employment practices to American business. It is unlawful under Title VII for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct. The statute applies to private sector employers with 15 or more employees and public sector employers at the federal, state, and local level. Title VII prohibits employment decisions based on stereotypes and assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of individuals on the basis of their protected status.…

    • 349 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    business law

    • 343 Words
    • 1 Page

    Nancy Johnston, appellant, brought suit against her employer, Del mar Distributing Co., Inc., appellee, alleging that her employment had been wrongfully terminated. Del Mar filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court alleging that appellant’s pleadings failed to state a cause of action. After a hearing on the motion, the trial agreed with Del Mar and granted its motion for summary judgment.…

    • 343 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects workers from discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In order for an employee to present a prima facie case for national origin discrimination, an employee would have to have prima facie evidence sufficient enough for a decision or verdict to be…

    • 1200 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been arguably one of the most historic pieces of legislation to shape employment law in modern times. While it offers protection to employees on the basis of race, age, sex, religion, disability, and national origin, it does highly contested, controversial, and present subject in political and social progressive dialogues in recent years. The federal law has not seen much benefit from this activity, but activity has altered change on the state level.…

    • 3283 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    v. CMS, the plantiff sued the defendant because the company’s race-neutral grooming policy discriminated against her hairstyle, dreadlocks. The claims asserted by the EEOC included that the grooming policy fails to acknowledge “the critical disadvantagee at which the dreadlock ban places black applicants” and “the people most adversely and significantly affected by the dreadlock ban are African-Americans”. It is important to keep in mind that hairstyles, even dreadlocks, are mutable characteristics. Immutable characteristics, such as race and gender, are protected by Title VII, but mutable characteristics are not. It is clear both claims assert disparate impact and not disparate treatment because the grooming policy was not a deliberate attack on any race, but rather it unintentionally targeted people with dreadlocks. The EEOC argued for disparate treatment, but it was not effective because they failed to provide a valid argument. In the Supreme Court case Ricci v. DeStefano, 18 firefighters, seventeen white and one hispanic, alleged that the city discriminated against them in violation of Title VII. The city administered a test and the eighteen firefighters passed it, which would have entitled them to managerial positions. However, the city threw out the results when they learned a disproportionate amount of African-Americans had not passed the test. The plaintiffs argued that the city had engaged in disparate treatment because the test results were thrown out due to skin color. The scores were not certified because of the results of a protected race. The city argued that the test results were not thrown out because of race, but to avoid a lawsuit from African-Americans. The Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs because disparate treatment discrimination was evident. The city violated Title VII by disregarding the test results to the detriment of the white firefighters that received the highest scores, which subjected them to disparate treatment…

    • 1072 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Diversity in the Workplace

    • 1068 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;…

    • 1068 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays