...With the appeal of Young v. United Parcel Service case in July 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an reinforcement guideline on pregnancy discrimination, the new guideline is to enhance all old compliance guidelines for pregnancy discrimination for broader protection. Previously mentioned, the language of the PDA says all pregnant employees are to be treated the same as an employee who are not pregnant and have similarities in their ability or inability to perform their responsibilities, if the employee is not capable; she is obligated to the same benefits as other employees. The new guideline expands upon the definition of pregnancy, medical coverage, and reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Definition- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now defines pregnancy as the entire reproductive process, this covers the acknowledgement to conceive or use of contraceptives such as birth control, childbirth, decision of pregnancy termination, post labor conditions (ex. breastfeeding) and past pregnancies. (Silverman, 2014) The coverage of past pregnancies creates a safeguard for employees after giving birth, within a time period an employer cannot terminate the employee as for she is no longer considered...
Words: 465 - Pages: 2
...Griggs v. Duke Power and McDonnell Douglas v. Green were two landmark cases in Title VII of the civil rights act. The cases led to a legal standard and framework which are still followed today in discrimination court cases. It is important for human resource departments to take steps in order to eliminate or greatly reduce discrimination in one’s company. Griggs v. Duke Power Company was an employment discrimination case that dealt with the legitimacy of high school diplomas and entrance intelligence test scores as requirements for employment. The court ruled unanimously opposing these requirements for employment at Duke Power Company. The result of the case led to employers being able to use intelligence tests only if they demonstrate a reasonable measure of...
Words: 855 - Pages: 4
...Equal Equal Employment Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 Opportunity Act of 1972 The Equal Employment Opportunity Act 1972 Introduction I. History a. Presidents i. Franklin D. Roosevelt ii. Harry S. Truman iii. John F. Kennedy b. The act prohibits II. Why the law was created c. Fair treatment III. Who the law benefits d. e. IV. Who the law affects f. g. V. Improvement h. Women i. People with disabilities j. lack of accountability k. negative attitudes VI. Case Studies l. McDonnell Douglas Corp vs. Percy Green m. Four factors n. Morton v Mancari History of the Law There were several different titles passed by different Presidents leading up to the Employment act of 1972. They are as followed in order: * In June 1941, the day before World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802 prohibiting government contractors from engaging in employment discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. * In July 1948, President Harry S. Truman orders the desegregation of the Armed Forces by Executive Order 9981. * In March 1961, President John F. Kennedy signs Executive Order 10925 prohibiting federal government contractors from discriminating because of race and establishing the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. * In June 1963, Congress...
Words: 902 - Pages: 4
...The majority's opinion was delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer. he said that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requiring employees to provide the same accommodations to pregnant workers as they would other workers that have similar limitations regardless of other possible factors was too broad. There is no real evidence showing that the Act was meant to grant pregnancy as an unconditional “most favored-nation status” but it was not meant to just be sex discrimination either. The Act was meant to go beyond just defining discrimination because of sex but to also include pregnancy discrimination. According to framework that was established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green the plaintiff can show that she faced separate treatment from her employer. McDonnell v. Green requires evidence that the employer’s actions were most likely based on discriminatory motives, and any reason the employer offered were pretext. However, not everyone agreed and three justices voted...
Words: 561 - Pages: 3
...September 26, 2018 CC: Lisa Peele, Head of Human Resources Application of the Law to the Facts: The Captain Co. v. Towne case showed us that it is an inextricable requirement to prove that the information the plaintiff seeks to protect must be unique to that particular organization and not general knowledge acquired working within an industry. As previously discussed, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and the New Hampshire iteration of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and its definitions confirm that Ever-Gold is a trade secret, covered by the confidentiality agreement, and was...
Words: 1500 - Pages: 6
...Raytheon Company v. Hernandez Raytheon Company v. Hernandez. This case was argued on October 8, 2003 and decided on December 2, 2003 dealing with the Disparate Treatment. Disparate Impact occurs when someone is treated differently, regarding the terms and conditions of the workplace, because of their sex, color, race, religion, physical or mental disability or age. In this court case employee, Joel Hernandez, from the Raytheon company had tested positive for cocaine usage. With the fear of being rejected from his employment, Joel had quit his job because he knew that he had violated petitioner Raytheon Company's workplace conduct rules. Another reason for why he resigned was based on the fact that the petitioner would have eventually fired...
Words: 1032 - Pages: 5
...discrimination of hiring, compensation, conditions, and privileges of employment based on race, religion, color, sex, or nationality | Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta v. United States | The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures that every person is allowed the same chance of getting hired based on their job qualifications regardless of, sex race, color, religion, or national origin. | Employers are required to post signs with the Title VII description in employee break-rooms. | Equal Employment Opportunity Act | Employers are not allowed to discriminate against employees on the basis of age, race, sex, creed, religion, color, or national origin. | McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green | Equal Employment Opportunity Act is to ensure that the Civil Rights Act requirements are being followed and gives power to the Employment Commission. | Meeting requirements by hiring people regardless of their national origin or race | Equal Pay Act | Requires that men and women working in the same place be given equal amount of pay for equal work. | Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. 1970 | It ensures everyone is paid the same wage for identical jobs regardless of their sex. | Today employees are getting paid based on their knowledge and experience. | Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 | Protects employees ages 40 to 65 from discrimination. | Gomez v. Potter | ADEA is that it protects the older employees from discrimination. | Companies like to use older persons as door greeters | Americans...
Words: 306 - Pages: 2
...This is a paper * The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 08a0121p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ DAVID DUNLAP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant. X > , N No. 07-5381 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. No. 04-00045—William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge. Argued: February 6, 2008 Decided and Filed: March 21, 2008 Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; OBERDORFER, District Judge. * _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Edwin W. Small, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Debra A. Wall, Clarksville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Edwin W. Small, John E. Slater, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Debra A. Wall, Clarksville, Tennessee, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. David Dunlap brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial discrimination by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The district court found that Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, concluding that the TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted ...
Words: 3402 - Pages: 14
... | | | | | |Title VII prohibits discrimination in |General Electric Co. v. Gilbert (1976)|To eliminate employment discrimination|This law was originally meant for | |Civil Rights Act of 1964 |hiring, compensation, terms, | |based on race, color, sex, national |employers with 25 or more employees | | |conditions, or privileges of | |origin. |but in 1972 it was reduced to 15. | | |employment based on race, religion, | | | | | |color, sex, or national origin. | | | | | |Amends Title VII of the Civil Rights |McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green |This law prohibits employment...
Words: 693 - Pages: 3
...St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks The case St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks is a precedent case that established the rule of pretext plus. On one side of this case you have Gary L. Gardner who is representing St. Mary’s and is arguing that the firing was not because of racial discrimination, but rather because of personal animosity. On the other side you have Charles R, Oldham representing Hicks, as well as Edward C DuMont on behalf of the EEOC. The ultimate question of fact in this case is to decide if Hicks was able to prove if he was discriminated against. The reason this question is so important is to make sure that innocent employers are not wrongfully sued for rightfully firing an employee, while also giving the employee a fair chance to prove discrimination....
Words: 943 - Pages: 4
... |Workplace Application | |Employment Law | | | | | |Civil Rights Act of 1964 |Prohibit employment |Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United |To end racial segregation. |This means that a person should be | | |discrimination in hiring, |States (1964) in this case the motel | |hired because they are qualified for | | |compensation, and terms, conditions, |was operated by refusing | |the job and not based on their sex, | | |or privileges of employment based on |accommodations to blacks. | |race or national origin. | | |race, religion, color, sex, or |Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) arising | | | | |national origin. |from a lawsuit brought against the |...
Words: 1182 - Pages: 5
...St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks The St. Mary’s Center v. Hicks case created national storm after the Supreme Court decision that an employee must provide evidence and prove discrimination in the workplace. To demonstrate discrimination, an employee must conform under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). Justice Scalia labeled Saint Mary’s Center v. Hicks case “pretext-plus” approach. Other courts, commentators, and analysts originally also classified the term pretext-plus. The approach of this case is similar to “pretext-only” approach from the case McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green of 1973 (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). The employee must develop a discrimination case and accepted as correct and proved otherwise. The employer is then liable and must effectively express the impartial administration. Conversely, if the employer does not provide an explanation to the accusation, the employee who established a charge of racial discrimination wins. Otherwise, if produces a statement of nondiscrimination regarding the allegation, then the employee is accountable and proves that the employer’s affirmation is purely pretextual. Apart from that, if the employee demonstrates pretext, the employer prevails (Cundiff, & Chaitovitz, 1994). Even though it is significant to change the structure of the organization to function efficiently and effectively. Considering the current employees performances and achievements is also significant to avoid legal dispute...
Words: 768 - Pages: 4
... | |Court Case Influential to | | | | |Description and Requirement of Law |Establishment of Law |Importance of Law |Workplace Application | |Employment Law | | | | | | |Protection from discrimination by |Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of |The importance of the Civil Rights Act|Enforcement: | |Civil Rights Act of 1964 |reason of race, color, religion, sex |Atlanta v. United States |of 1964 ensures that every person is |EEOC investigates and can enforce; | | |or national origin; protection from | |allowed the same chance of getting |employee may file suit six months | | |retaliation for opposing | |hired based on their job |after filing complaint | | |unlawful discrimination or | |qualifications regardless of...
Words: 766 - Pages: 4
...Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 2010 Employment Discrimination in the Ethnically Diverse Workplace Tanya Kateri Hernandez Fordham University School of Law, THERNANDEZ@law.fordham.edu Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Tanya Kateri Hernandez, Employment Discrimination in the Ethnically Diverse Workplace , 49 Judges' J. 33 (2010) Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu. .. . .......... By Tanya Kateri Hernandez a1cial integrto has long been the touchstone of racial progress in the 0 workplace. But integration is only the beginning of the struggle to end racial discrimination. As workplaces become more diverse, they do nor necessarily becomie less racially discriminatory. Diverse workplaces may be characterized by antagonism between people ofdifferent races. Interethnic discrimination may exist along side the discrimination that has traditionally occurred between blacks...
Words: 3823 - Pages: 16
...Workplace Application | Civil Rights Act of 1964 | The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was put in place to avoid discrimination in hiring, compensation, conditions, and privileges of employment based on race, religion, color, sex, or nationality (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007) | Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta v. United States(Legal Information Institute, 2011) | Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures that all applicants are afforded an equal opportunity of being hired and there is no discrimination with respect to one’s gender, religion, race, color, or origin. It also ensures that job candidates are selected and considered because of their skills and talent. | Under the law employers are required to post signs with the Title VII description in employee break-rooms. This helps ensure that companies are meeting the requirements and that they are hiring and promoting minorities which can protect them against discrimination law suits. | Equal Employment Opportunity Act | Guaranties employee’s fair treatment. Employers are not allowed to discriminate against employees on the basis of age, race, sex, creed, religion, color, or national origin. (DeCenzo & Robbins, 2007) | McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (Legal Information Institute, 2011) | The importance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act is to ensure that the Civil Rights Act requirements are being followed and gives power to the Employment Commission. | Companies ensure that they are meeting requirements and being mindful...
Words: 1213 - Pages: 5
