Ledbetter fought and won the case being awarded $3.3 million. Only to have it reduced to around $300,000.00 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court also voted 5-4 against Ledbetter, that she was not entitled the compensation because she filed her claim more than 180 days after receiving her first discriminating paycheck (Pickert 2009). The court then sent stated that this was an issue for Congress to “clear up”.
Discussion Questions 1. How do you counter her charge? a. I counter her charge of retaliation being this basis of her layoff by presenting documentation showing she would have been laid off due to a Reduction in Force regardless of the suit she filed against me. 2. What data do you need to justify your recommendation?
3-7: Arbitration (pg. 77) Horton Automatics and the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, the union that represented Horton’s workers, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee’s discharge for a workplace-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was reasonable and whether the employee violated it. When Horton discharged employee Ruben de la Garza, the union appealed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that de la Graza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but “was not totally convinced” that Harton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations. The arbitrator ordered de la Graza reinstated.
The National Labor Relations Act allows employees to form a union or join a preexisting union. The same act prevents employers from standing in the way of workers attempting to unionize. Many organizations frown on unionization, but regardless of their opinion, they cannot interfere with employment rights. Employers are violating the law if they threaten employee 's jobs, question union activities, or eliminate benefits for employees by unionization. They also cannot offer benefits or perks to employees for refusing to unionize, as this could be seen as illegal persuasion (Employer/Union Rights, n.d.).
Why do you believe these actions were discriminatory? The first case file with EECO by Tanya Conde girl friend of Samuel Varriano Maintenance #3 who was fired from Pitt University .The defendent 's in case Robert Godzik, William Franicola supervisor and Pitt University was dismissed . Now Robert Godzik and Pitt University have confidence themselves this isn 't a hostile work environment .With
For one group called the Knights of Labor success lied ahead in the future. The faction was a secret organization formed to unite all workers, those with low or high work skills were recruited, and even African Americans joined (CITE 117). To assure the safety of everyone in the group, different names were distributed. A strike against Jay Gould’s Missouri Pacific railroad was organized by the Knights, in 1885. The company cut wages and fired anyone who belonged to unions.
When I asked Robert Hoffman to start at 5:00 a.m. to avoid the harassment fromMichael Niehenke and Donna Myers requested denied. C. When Harry Feals and I work together we have Julie Godzik, Robert Godzik, Brain Weaver and Michael Niehenke . These employees have stared at us until Mr. Franicola come after they called him Other employees are aloud to work together 8. Of the Persons in the same, or similar situation as you who was treated worse than you? Harry Feals Maintenance # 1 Harry Feals Maintenance #1 Mr. Feals received 11 weeks of Work for false allegation filed on pitt alert line, now he is seeking professional health with counseling to help cope with working at Pitt at Greensburg. .
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 Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc. Case, Dolores Oubre the plaintiff was a scheduler at power plant in Killona, Louisiana, which is run by Entergy Operations, Inc. (the defendant). In 1994, Oubre’s employer gave her two options: she can either improve her job performance or accept a severance pay. While accepting the severance package, Oubre signed a document that released her employer Entergy of all claims. Although the employer Entergy Operations was released of all claims, it failed to meet specific standards or requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as decided or set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). In procuring the release, Entergy failed to comply in at least three respects with the requirements for a release under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as set forth in the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act: It did not (1) give Oubre enough time to consider her options, (2) give her seven days to change her mind, or (3) make specific reference to ADEA claims (Twomey, 2013, p. 548).
George Pullman, and other employers, controlled their employees and did not care if the wage was too low or the working conditions weren’t safe. George Pullman controlled a company that manufactured sleeping cars for trains and operated them under contract to the railroads. He created Pullman City to house his employees; it was a three thousand acre plot of land south of Chicago in the area of 114th Street and Cottage Grove. His employees were required to live in Pullman City. He made the clergy pay rent to use the church, and he charged money for use of the library.
Williamson later filed a complaint with IAD that Bozeman had retaliated against her for her complaint against McLeod. She advised she was shunned, taunted and given a less desirable assignment that caused her to lose overtime possibilities. IAD eventually found her sexual harassment to be not sustained and McLeod only received a written reprimand and Bozeman faced no disciplinary action. Williamson filed an EEOC complaint and this led to suit against the City of Houston. A jury ruled in Williamson’s favor and she was awarded lost compensation and punitive damages.
Introduction This case study of Vehar v. Cole National Group is a case where the plaintiff, Wendy Vehar, accused Cole National Group of sex discrimination claiming that as a female she was not being the same wage as a male for performing the same duties. Additionally this study will determine if the plaintiff established a valid prima facie as well as if there was a basis for equal work. Next, what factors did the appeals court base its decision and why is the other-than-sex factor that is presented by the employer insufficient to avoid a trial? Finally, what should the employer have done differently to ensure this type of situation did not occur in their business?
8. Principle of Law: The court states, the first of the City’s contentions is easily dismissed. The jury found that Bozeman had notice of the harassment, and it is well established that we must accept a jury’s factual finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. The City’s second claim—that as a matter of law Bozeman’s knowledge should not have been imputed to the City—poses a more significant question concerning the limits of potential liability under Title VII. This court has noted that “the type and extent of notice necessary to impose liability on an employer under Title VII are the subject of some uncertainty.”
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.
Working conditions to day have changed tremendously since the 1900’s. When it comes to unions you have two viewpoints. The view point of the business which basically which says employer should be able to run their business as they please, without any interference from anyone they employ. To them as an employer they feel that they have the right to make key business decisions, and labor is something that they can sell for whatever the market will bear. Then, you have the viewpoint of the union which says employees have a right to say in their wages and working conditions, they feel that labor is part of who they are.