Hmrsonedirection.weebly.com



Team 4 Case #2HMRS 5435.01Employee Planning, Staffing, & SelectionUniversity of Houston – Clear LakeMembers:Charlotte Duchesne, Kayla Gardner, Charlotte Horne, Quyen Le, Tiffany Sweet, & Andrew SzymczakIncident 1-?What legal statute(s) apply in this case?The legal statute in this case is discrimination based on religion under Title VII.-?What issue(s) must the court decide in this case?The court must decide whether or not the employer made an attempt to accommodate the employee and whether or not it resulted in undue hardship.?-?If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not?If I were the judge, I would rule in favor of the employee.?I would hold the employer responsible because they made no attempts to accommodate her religious beliefs and the employee was not pushing her religious beliefs on other employees.?Since an employer violates the statute unless it “demonstrates that it is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employers business,” I would consider the employer to be at fault.?The employee’s religious beliefs were not affecting other employees in the company.?The employer did not attempt to accommodate because once the employee filed the complaint she was then fired.??Incident 2?-?What legal statute(s) apply in this case?The legal statute in this case is employment discrimination based on race under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.-?What issue(s) must the court decide in this case?The court must decide whether or not the employer was discriminating against the African American in the selection process for the new job.-?If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not?If I were the judge, the employer did discriminate unlawfully and I would rule in favor of the African American because although the employer said there were no current openings at the time he applied, the African American (Roberts in this case) could prove that there were in fact openings at the time he applied due to the newspaper ad he had responded to.?Robert was more qualified than the Caucasian males that were hired and in order for the employer to win they must prove that, “the practice is job related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity,” which they could not prove.?Incident 3?-?What legal statute(s) apply in this case?The legal statute in this case is sex discrimination under Title VII.-?What issue(s) must the court decide in this case?The court must decide if sex discrimination had anything to do with the female in this case, Jones, not being chosen as partner.?-?If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not?If I were the judge, I would rule in favor of Thelma Jones.? The employer did discriminate unlawfully by basing their employment decision on a sex stereotype.? The sex-based comments that she was “overly aggressive”, “macho”, and that she need to “walk and dress more femininely” indicate that Jones did not fit the female stereotype that the partners required. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the trial court, the court of appeals, and the Supreme Court all agreed that employment decisions based on sex stereotypes constitute sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.Incident 4-?What legal statute(s) apply in this case??Legal statute could apply to this case especially if it was found that James McFadden was being sexually discriminated against when he had a medical disorder such as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), according to Title VII. Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of a sex violation of Title VII. Any adverse action taken because of McFadden’s non-conformance with sex-stereotypes in considered discrimination.-?What issue(s) must the court decide in this case??The issue the court must decide is if this is if McFadden is being discriminated against (fired) for not conforming to his sex-stereotypes, in which case this would be a violation of Title VII.?-?If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not? I would rule that this is discrimination. It is clear that McFadden was fired subsequently after failing to conform to gender or sex-stereotypes. Also, if the court finds that McFadden had GID and the employer did not accommodate his medical condition, this would make the ruling more definitive; in favor of Mr. McFadden.Incident 5- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would apply to this case due to Mr. Johnson being harassed and discriminated against based on his race. Title VII prohibits offensive conduct or derogatory comments based on an individual’s race. Also, employees have the right to be free from retaliation for their opposition to discrimination.- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? The court must decide if the comments were severe or pervasive enough to be considered harassment. Also, the court must decide if Mr. Johnson was being fired due to retaliation from his supervisor.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not? I would rule in favor of Mr. Johnson. Clearly, the comments bothered him enough to take it up with management. Also, after bringing up the discrimination and harassment, Mr. Johnson was subsequently fired. It seems Mr. Johnson was retaliated against for going above his supervisor and reporting the harassment and derogatory slurs against him, in which case it would be a violation against Title VII.??Incident 6- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? Title VII and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 would apply to this case. The hiring of a female, Ms. Palmer, is due to an affirmative employment measure to remedy for discrimination against women. The required test, based on whether the knowledge, skills or abilities that are tested are important for job performance needs, is applicable to Title VII.- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case?The issue the court must decide is if the affirmative action measure in place does not unfairly discriminate others and if so, if reverse discrimination is taking place.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not? I would rule in favor of the employer. It is clear from their numbers (none of the 238 employees are women) that they are attempting to remedy their affirmative employment measures. Also, if the employer can prove that the test does not necessarily test for all job-related factors, it can help them win this case. ?Incident 7?- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? The legal statute which applies to this case is the discriminating employment decision based on gender under Title VII.- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? The court must decide if the decision not to hire Williams for a principal position was based on sex.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not? As judge, I would rule in favor of Williams.??The school district unlawfully discriminated against Williams when they denied her the principal position because she was not a man.??The reason she was given, “the school district believed that students need a ‘male image’ for a middle or secondary school principal”, is not sufficient to support a BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification).Incident 8- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? The legal statute that applies to this case is disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? The court must decide if Poole has a disability covered under ADA, if Jackson County schools discriminated against Poole by reassigning him to an administrative position due to his disability, and if having AIDS posed as a direct threat to the health and safety of others.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not???As judge, I would rule in favor of Poole.??Courts have consistently held that individuals with AIDS have a disability under ADA.??Poole was reassigned only after the Jackson County School district was aware of his condition.??Therefore, they did not base their employment decision on any other factor than his disability.??Also, as a school teacher Poole did not pose a threat to the health of his students and this was affirmed by the county medical director.??In the case of?Chalk v. U.S. District Court,?a teacher who was diagnosed with AIDS was granted an injunction against transfer to an administrative position because the risk of AIDS transmission in the classroom was minimal.Incident 9- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? The legal statutes that apply to this case are discrimination based on sex under Title VII and unfair pay under The Equal Pay Act of 1963.- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? The court should decide if Mailton County Jail can establish a BFOQ for restricting correction officers and deputy sheriff positions to males, and if the jobs of a matron and a male guard are equivalent in terms of skills, effort, responsibilities, and working conditions.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not? If Mailton County Jail could prove that the dangerous conditions would reduce a female guard’s ability to maintain order with male inmates, then I would dismiss the discrimination charge under Title VII.??As judge, I would want to know why the male guards do not have to perform paperwork.??Is there another position created for them, so that they can focus on guarding the inmates? And if so, why was this opportunity not afforded to the matrons???The essential job responsibilities of the matrons, corrections officers, and deputy sheriffs are to guard the inmates.??Therefore, there is a substantially equivalent amount of responsibility required.??I would rule in favor of the matrons under the Equal Pay Act and award them back pay.?Incident 10- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? The legal statute which applies to this case is the sexual harassment for creating a hostile environment.- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? The court must decide if a reasonable person would have the same feeling if they were put in Donna Skeen’s shoes. The court must also decide who will be held responsible.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not? If I was the judge, I would rule in favor of Donna Skeen and hold the employer responsible due to the teasers being managers. I believe any reasonable person would feel the same why she did. The employer was aware of the harassment and allowed it. The employer also didn’t have anything in place to prevent harassment or a way for Donna can complain or call an anonymous hotline. Donna also made demands to have the harassment stop, but it continued without management stepping in to stop it.Incident 11- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? The legal statute is reverse discrimination which is under the Civil Rights Act.- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? The court must decide if a reverse discrimination had to do anything with Atwood being fired.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? If I was a judge, I would rule in favor of Atwood. The affirmative action plan signed 4 years ago was a promotion and hiring plan to hire more minorities, not on who to fire. The fire department tends to have a seniority system, so firing Atwood would result in a reverse discriminationIncident 12- What legal statute(s) apply in this case? The legal statute that applies to this case is The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).- What issue(s) must the court decide in this case? The issue the court must decide is if Herbert is eligible for disability benefits under FMLA and if he was wrongful terminated.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? If I was the judge, I would rule in favor of company. Depression is an illness covered under FMLA and Herbert was allowed to take time off due to that. When he was not able to return as scheduled, the employer made reasonable accommodations to have Herbert return at a later agreed upon date. Herbert then made a request to work part-time and miss some meetings. Due to undue hardship, the company was not able to accommodate because of financial pressures. It became a business necessity for a salesperson to perform 110%, which Herbert was not able to meet the qualifications. If the company accommodated Herbert’s request, this would have financially hurt the company.Incident 13- What legal statutes apply in this case???The legal statute which applies in this case is Title VII, discrimination of national origin.- What issues must the court decide in this case???The court must decide if Federal and State Bank violated Title VII, by discriminating against Lia Lee because of her accent.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not???Title VII prohibits employment discrimination against any applicant or employee because of national origin, unless the employer can prove it’s justified through a BFOQ. National origin discrimination does include discrimination based upon physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of an ethnic group.?? Lia Lee is covered under Title VII in this case, and I would rule in favor of Lia, unless the employer is able to prove business necessity.??However, since Lia has received outstanding performance reviews as a teller (dealing with customers), I think it would be difficult for the employer in this case to show business necessity.Incident 14 -What legal statutes apply in this case???The legal statute that applies in this case is the Americans with Disability Act or ADA.-What issues must the court decide in this case???The court must decide if Slendercise, Inc.’s practice of only hiring instructors that look leaner than the public is discriminating against Margaret Reynolds.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not???ADA defines “disability” very broadly, and includes “being regarded as having such an impairment”.??Individuals can establish that they are “regarded as having such an impairment” if they show that they have been subjected to discriminatory treatment because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.??In addition, the ADA does not allow discrimination against an otherwise ‘qualified individual with a disability’, which is an individual with a disability who is able to perform, with reasonable accommodation, the requirements of the job in question, despite the disability.??So, Margaret has the burden of demonstrating she is able to do all of the complicated aerobics steps and exercises needed to do the job.??If Margaret can prove this, then I would rule that under the ADA, Slendercise is discriminating unlawfully against Margaret Reynolds.Incident 15-What legal statutes apply in this case???The legal statute that applies in this case is discrimination based on religion, which is protected under Title VII and section 701(j) reasonable accommodation.- What issues must the court decide in this case???The court must decide if the employer made reasonable attempts to accommodate Abdul Mohammed’s request of a private space where he could pray during his lunch hour.??The court must also decide if hostile work environment was created due to religious harassment.- If you were the judge, how would you rule? Did the employer discriminate unlawfully? Why or why not???I would rule in favor of Abdul Mohammed on the charge of religious discrimination.??Section 701(j) states, an employer must make reasonable attempts to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, but if such attempts are not successful or involve undue hardship, the employer may discharge the employee.??To decide what would cause a business undue hardship, or exempt them from making a reasonable accommodation, the courts look at the number of employees requiring the accommodation, the size of the company, the cost of the accommodation, the administrative requirements, and what alternatives are available to the employees.??The employee must notify the employer of the religious belief and must request accommodation.??In this case, we don’t know the size of the company, but we do know 6 employees at the plant were requesting this accommodation.??Abdul did notify the company of the religious practice, and the accommodation needed, and I don’t feel the company made any reasonable attempts to accommodate Abdul or the other five employees, or that a reasonable accommodation would have an undue hardship, I would rule in favor of Abdul.??With regards to the hostile work environment from religious harassment, I would rule in favor Abdul Mohammed as well.??Title VII is violated when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that are sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download