1. Title VII of CRA 1964- based on religion. As a judge in the case of Mobley, I would find in favor of her case. The employer unlawfully discriminated against her rights by trying to convert her to a member of the Baptist faith. Encouraging her to discuss her personal issues in the workplace the manager overstepped bounds into Ms. Mobley’s personal life and then into her religious life by trying to convert her to the Baptist faith. This made a hostile workplace environment and therefore, she was fired. As judge I would rule in favor of the Ms. Mobley. The company was obviously discriminately unlawfully.
2. Title VII of CRA 1964 - based on race. As the judge in Mr. Roberts’s complaint, I would find in favor of his complaint. The employer clearly discriminated against Mr. Roberts based on his race. He had over the 22 months plus 10 additional years experience above and beyond that of the people that were hired during the time frame, which he applied for and was not hired. Mr. Roberts had the experience and knowledge that the others clearly did not have even though they were hired in his stead.
3. CRA of 1991 - based on sex. As a judge, for Ms. Jones’ lawsuit, I would have to disagree with her lawsuit. She states in the lawsuit that she had a meeting with a senior partner where she said that she was told several things. There is no written submitted evidence that this meeting ever took place. It is considered heresy and as a judge for her lawsuit, I would have to dismiss her claim. The employer did not discriminate unlawfully.
4. CRA of 1991 - based on sex. As a judge for Mr. McFadden’s lawsuit, I would have to dismiss this case. The employer, in my opinion did not discriminate. Mr. McFadden continues to go by his name, not her. He was not following the requirements of the job and continued to ignore them, which went against his contract. The