Lawson. Case to Consider for Ms. Lawson’s Position Juarez v. AutoZone: Rosario Juarez worked at AutoZone for five years and was fired for claiming that woman was given a glass ceiling for promotions along with an unfair hiring process that deterred a woman from getting jobs at the company. The company suggested that Ms. Juarez step down for not being able to take care of her son and work for the company simultaneously. In the end, Ms. Juarez got awarded 185 million in punitive damages, which at the time was the most ever granted to a single employee (Juarez v. AutoZone). It is vital for Greene’s to know the cases that will be presented to the public eye that will get the public rallied against them.
The City of Houston then filed a timely appeal stating that they did not receive timely notice of the alleged violation and that the liability of Bozeman should rest with Bozeman and not be imputed to the City as having been notified of the complaint allegations. 5. Main issue: Does notifying an immediate supervisor who is not considered “upper management” satisfy the requirement of notification to the agency that in turn creates a situation of vicarious liability to the agency if they do not act on the alleged complaint? 6. Court Deciding:
Williamson v. City of Houston, 148 F. 3d 462, Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit (1998) Facts: Linda Williamson worked as a police officer in a specialized division in the Houston Police Department. Williamson alleged a coworker, Doug McLeod, engaged in harassing behavior that created a hostile work environment for eighteen months. McLeod continued the harassing behavior after she told him it was offensive and to stop. Williamson reported McLeod’s harassment to their supervisor, Sergeant Bozeman.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
In the case of Black vs Usher Transport, the courts should rule in the favor of Black. This case involves a truck driver who can sue for loss of employment due to mishandled information and defamation of character. Black also was dealing with loss of salary and emotional distress because this caused an issue with him getting a job due to his job history. The reading in this case states that his drug test was read incorrectly by the office worker and that he lost his employment as a result of a positive drug screen. The misleading information had an impact on his future employment.
In the case of Anna v her employers, a case for employment discrimination was created when her supervisor Michael first violated company policy then refused to mitigate the results of that violation. Anna did her part by requesting that policy violations stop and then asking for mitigation when the policy violations resulted in a hostile work environment for herself. The company failed to address either the policy violations with the supervisor or the resulting actions of those policy violations. Case of Discrimination Claims of hostile work environment as a result of employee discrimination are on the increase (Saadem, 2011). Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 is intended to provide protection and relief against discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, and religion.
Chastity Jones, an African-American and the defendant in this case, was denied a job offer due to her appearance. Catastrophe Management Solutions, located in Mobile, Alabama, announced that it was seeking candidates with basic computer knowledge to work as customer service representatives. Ms. Jones completed an online employment application, and was selected for an in-person interview at a later date with other applicants. Ms. Jones arrived dressed in a blue business suit with her hair in short dreadlocks. She interviewed with a company representative to discuss the qualifications of the position, then Ms. Jones and other selected applicants were bought into a room with CMS’s human resources manager to be informed they were hired for the
The case of McKennon vs Nashville Banner Publishing Co. raised an important question that past courts fail to accurately rule on. The problem at hand is whether an employee who has been dismissed from their job because of age, but whom is also been found to have committed a serious misconduct while they were previously employed, a misconduct that would have normally resulted in the immediate termination of the employee, is in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The question presented to the court was - is the employee allowed any relief from the employer who wrongly terminated them in the first place, even though a wrongdoing was discovered during the discovery period? In previous cases, such as the Summers vs State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, the courts ruled in favor of the employer and dismissed the discrimination of the employee and did not offer any type of relief to the employee over their wrongful dismissal (Hoffman, 1996).
In deciding whether the employees acted within his given duties, the defendant need only show his actions fell within the normal duties of a security officer or his actions were necessary to determine the truth. The manner should only be determined to be unreasonable if the plaintiff can show excessive and aggressive physical contact. Accusatory commentary expressed during the course of the detention is immaterial. Godwin, 172 S.E.2d at 467, Tomblin v. S.S. Kresge Co., 207 S.E.2d 693, 693-97 (Ga. App. 1974), Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Fishel, 288 S.E.2d 21, 21-24 (Ga. App. 1981), Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 360 S.E.2d 649, 652 (Ga. App.1987), Brown v. Super Discount Markets, Inc., 447 S.E.2d 839, 839-841 (Ga. App. 1996), Ye.v. Kroger, 556 S.E.2d 879, 879-81 (Ga. App.
The women ended up standing up to their harassers and the women were fired. This type of retaliation from their harassers violated the title VII of civil Rights Act of 1964. The women took their case to the EEOC Attorneys. The Attorneys that trailed the case were Attorney Beatriz Andre and Daniel Seltzer. The Attorneys then who worked for EEOC filed the case with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
He also includes survey results and quotes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Scheiber’s article is current, written only thirteen days ago, and relative to today’s workplace. Structure and Format: 20/20 – Overall, I found this article very professionally written. The author did not use any industry specific language and there were no grammatical errors found within.
With the many cases that transpired over the years Black women have been discriminated against time after time. One for example “DeGraffenreid v General Motors”, per text states that “five black women brought suit against General Motors, alleging that the employer’s seniority system perpetuated the effects of
Further, the law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who exercise their rights under the Act. An employee who demonstrates that their employer took adverse employment action against them for asserting their rights will be entitled to reinstatement (if the employee was fired or demoted), recovery of lost wages, the interest thereon and an amount equal to that for liquidated damages, in addition to any benefits lost (for example, medical insurance coverage). The aggrieved employee must file their unequal pay or retaliation suit within one year from the employer 's alleged unlawful conduct. However, the employee is not required to exhaust all administrative remedies (such as filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or California Labor Board) prior to initiating their discrimination or retaliation lawsuit.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED WHEN TRYING TO CURB SEXUAL & RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AT WORKPLACES. Discrimination wrongfully inflicts disadvantageous treatment on persons based on their affiliation in a significant social group. Racial Profiling By definition, racial profiling is treating someone first as a “suspect,” using a person’s race, religion and/or ethnicity alone as a sufficient prognostic indicator of potential unlawful behavior.
She won her case, with jury awarding her $300,000 in damages. EPA was found guilty of violating civil rights of Marsha on the basis of race, sex, colour and hostile work environment under Civil Rights Act of 1964. The NO FEAR Coalition conducted thorough campaigns to sensitise the masses against the racial discrimination and the disturbing work conditions. These campaigns and trial secured the passage of ‘Notification of Federal Employees Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act, 2002’, a first anti- discrimination and Civil Rights law of 21st century. President George W. Bush signed the act in 2002.