In the case of Elaine vs. Jerry we will be looking at numerous legal issues involved. Did Elaine in any way experience discrimination in regards to her termination? Does the company’s employment-at-will status allow for them to terminate any employees without reason? Is there any evidence of ethical violations in the termination of Elaine? Did Elaine and Jerry enter into an express contract when Jerry told her of “great career opportunities” and offered her an annual salary of $30,000? Since the plaintiff is a female and was fired without cause or reason and subsequently replaced by a man with less experience and education she will be able to argue that Jerry has violated Title VII of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Section 703(a)(2). Title VII states that: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, term’s, 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 (Cheeseman, H. (2007). The legal environment of business and online commerce (5th ed., p. 428). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall). The plaintiff may also argue that an express contract was conducted when Jerry offered her $30,000 a year for her services. Express contracts can be either oral or written between two parties in exchange for services provided. An employee who is offered an express employment contract for a definite term, in this case the plaintiff was offered $30,000 per year, can not be discharged in violation of the contract (Cheeseman, H. (2007). The legal environment of business and online commerce (5th ed., p. 202, p. 415). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall). The defendant will argue that as an employment-at-will company he has the right to terminate employment of any employee at any time without reason. The defendant can state that no express contract was entered between the two parties but rather an offer of employment. It is common practice for employers to inform employees of their annual salary before officially hiring them. Therefore, as no contract was created the plaintiff was an at-will employee. Under common law an at-will employee can be terminated at any time for any reason (Cheeseman, H. (2007). The legal environment of business and online commerce (5th ed., p. 415). The defendant can argue that he did not violate Title VII by hiring the plaintiff to begin with. If he were discriminatory to her in any way then he would have not hired her in the first place. The defendant can state the male replacement with less experience and education was hired to replace the plaintiff because he (the defendant) was able to pay him less and the job ultimately did not warrant the salary provided to the plaintiff. In the case “Elaine vs. Jerry” I would find for the plaintiff Elaine. The defendant did not act lawfully or ethically when he terminated the plaintiff’s employment. Employment-at-will does not give the employer the right to terminate an employee without cause. No probationary period of employment was stated and the defendant showed that the position held by the plaintiff was necessary to the company when he hired “Kramer”. His argument that he hiring the plaintiff to begin with should exclude him from a Title VII violation does not hold up as he did not provide the other applicants that were available when the plaintiff was hired. I would find that the defendant did indeed violate Title VII as the facts provided show me he discriminated against her sex by hiring a less qualified, less educated man to replace her the first chance he had. I also find that the defendant violated tort law (Intentional Torts Against Persons) and award the plaintiff tort damages in that he intentionally inflicted emotional distress towards the plaintiff. The defendant’s actions of terminating the plaintiff because of her sex caused the plaintiff emotional distress for which I would award damages (Cheeseman, H. (2007). The legal environment of business and online commerce (5th ed., p. 415). I would award reinstatement and back pay retroactive to when the plaintiff was terminated. In this case I do think the current rules are fair and should be enforced. No one should be subject to discrimination of any kind in the workplace. Unfortunately there are people in positions of power who are simple minded and may think that a man is better than a woman or a white person is more capable than a Latino. These rules and laws were put into place because there was an obvious problem that needed to be addressed. If people were not protected by these rules we would have a much different and hostile society. Not to mention our economy would suffer greatly. In this day and age men and woman of all colors participate in the workforce and if we were to limit that to just white men for example, millions of jobs would be lost. Production would suffer immensely, the economy would stall because those who would not be working would not have the income to consume. Unfortunately I believe we still have a long way to go in creating workplace equality but we have also come a long way from where we used to be and much of that is thanks to laws put forth to ensure everyone has the same opportunities free from discrimination.