Anti-Discrimination Case Study

Lennie tells her to leave but she responds by saying, “I get lonely... You can talk to people, but I can’t talk to nobody but Curley” (Steinbeck,

It wasn’t until Selenas father kept seeing a problem and decided to do something about it, that Yolanda started to panic. The day after Selena and her family confronted Saldivar and were going to fire her, Yolanda called Selena and asked her to meet her at a hotel so that they could talk privately. It was that night when Selena died, Saldivar shot her after begging and pleading Selena not to fire her. Selena died on the night of March 31, 1995, in Corpus Christi,

He defends his wife and tells the court that his wife fired Abigail because of their affair. When the court brought Elizabeth Proctor into the court and asked her about the affair she denied it. Even though she knew the affair was true she denied it because she didn’t know Proctor had confessed and wanted to take her husband’s name

Further, this court decision was made in the absence of a full trial. Sindermann then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. They reversed the lower court’s decision and concluded that Sindermann had a reasonable expectation of continued employment even though he did not have tenure. The court clarified that Sindermann could not be terminated or non-renewed based on exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. In addition, Sindermann was entitled to a hearing with the Board of Regents and a full trial in federal District Court regarding his contract not being renewed.

A speech code is any university policy that forbids the use of hateful or contemptuous expressions towards any social group, particularly those categorized based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc. In this essay, I will explain why such regulations are justifiable for the reasons that Charles R. Lawrence Ⅲ states in Racist Speech as the Functional Equivalent of Fighting Words. He argues that speech codes “[do] nothing more than prohibit intentional face-to-face insults”(pg 175), and that “racial insults are undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim.”(pg 175) A prime reason for many universities

This Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Consider Whether Mother Should Have Been Held In Contempt. Father avers that the circuit court erred in failing to hold Mother in contempt. Indeed, Father asserts that “[Mother’s] conduct warranted a finding of contempt, and it was erroneous for the trial court to rule otherwise.” The scope of our review of the trial court’s failure to find Father in contempt is as follows: (a) Scope of review. –Any person may appeal

As much as we’d like to think that discrimination within care settings did not exist, sadly it does and it’s an issue that affects many individuals each day. The government recognise that it is important to ensure that there are laws in place in order to ensure that people get the right treatment. The Equality Act 2010’ states that all individuals must be treated fairly and equally. This law is there to ensure that people are given care which meets their needs and is in their best interests.

The reading “Gendering Organizational Theory” written by Joan Acker analyzes the importance of implementing gendered organizations into the organization of public administration that integrate the role of women with neutrality. The author advocates for the usage of gender structures that advocates for gender-neutral character, job evaluation and the concept of abstract worker into the structure of complex organizations. Acker argued, “Jobs and hierarchies are represented as gender neutral, and every time such a job evaluation system is used, the notion of gender-neutral structure and the behavior based on that notion are re-created within the organization” (p. 425). The reading begins its discussion by mentioning the differences in treatment, society roles, and limitations and women face in their daily lives.

An example from the bill of rights is Amendment number 9. It says that you have additional rights that are not listed in the Constitution. While the anti federalists were in favor of this, the federalists believed that any rights not listed in the bill of rights would not be protected. This shows that with this, the people would have their rights protected and even some that were not included in the bill of rights. Another example of the anti federalists taking action of protecting their rights is in the 1st amendment.

The passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although riddled with ironies, was crucial in legitimizing the legal feminist strategy. The main paradox of Title VII was the amendment that include the word “sex” into the bill’s language, was offered by Rep. Howard Smith, an anti-civil rights democrat from Virginia (Freeman, “How ‘Sex’ Got into Title VII”). Therefore, the language of Title VII made it unlawful for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and nation origin. Rep. Smith’s plan to kill the bill by attaching the “sex” discrimination language backfired in a major way.

The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma upheld that the policy was in fact constitutional based on the existence of a “special need, indicated by accounts of drug abuse since 1970.” The verdict would be reversed in the appellate court. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals reaffirming that like in the district court, the policy was in fact, constitutional.

The creation of the VWIL was also declared to not be an equal alternative to VMI, as it did come with the same reputation and prestige that a VMI diploma has with it. The majority opinion, written by Ginsberg, said that because VMI could not justify that their restrictions on genders and how it contributed to the education or structure of the school that it was unconstitutional to deny this right to women (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996). Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting argument in which he argued that the court’s decision was more based on strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny as it was in Craig v. Boren. By not allowing women, Virginia was facing the same dilemma as Oklahoma in Craig v. Boren when the Equal Protection Clause had been called into question when state law gave two different drinking ages for different sexes. In this 7-2 case was the first to Craig v. Boren, which stated that Oklahoma having two different drinking ages for males and females was unconstitutional as it did not provide justification as to why the genders had different standards (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).

The employer alleged that the arbitrator went beyond his authority in shielding the award. The trial court settled the award, and the Court of Appeals held that the employer could not justify its complaints citing the Hall Street opinion. 3. Issue for the court to decide: Does policies include an arbitration clause? In arbitration is that going to continue be

Although the state disregarded the Full Faith and Credit clause, the court upheld the argument because the couple had not established bona fide residence in Nevada. To become a legal, bona fide resident of a State, one must reside there for the state’s required amount of time and have the intentions of residing there permanently or at the least, indefinitely. Williams and Hendrix clearly did not intend to do so. As a result, the two were convicted of bigamous cohabitation.

The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.