1. The executive was not subjected to an adverse employment action. The executive is only speculating that the reason he didn’t get the award was because of his race. He’s has no substantial prove that his race was the reason why he didn’t get award. There could’ve been many other reasons why his supervisor decided not to recommend him for the award. In addition, it says that not all nominees receive the award. So, even if the executive had been nominated for the award there was no guarantee that he would actually be given the award. Moreover, the failure to be recommended for a Presidential Rank Award is not categorically an adverse employment action. The inherent uncertainty in the Presidential Rank Award process means there can be no direct tie between a nomination and an actual award. Lastly, the executive wouldn’t even be able to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment. The executive was not subjected to an adverse …show more content…
No, the female crane operator does not have a valid sex discrimination claim because neither the women nor the men were allowed to stop working in order to take bathroom breaks. The management said justified the policy by saying that there was a shortage of staff and that it was necessary for the cranes to operate continuously in that area of the plant. The exact same policy and working conditions applied to the male crane operators but they just found a way around the policy by urinating over the side or back of their cranes in lieu of bathroom breaks. Additionally, the female crane operator was offered several alternative jobs but she choose to reject all of them because she only wanted to be a crane operator. She also can’t claim that she was wrongfully discharged because she was offered alternative jobs and declined all of them. Moreover, this was not an adverse employment action. She choose to quit her job she was not fired. It’s not a valid sex discrimination claim just because the female employee disagrees with company