Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts
Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts
Based on the US Supreme ruling in Burlington Northern & Santa Railway Co - Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts introduction. v. White, 548 –, no. 05- 259 (June 22, 2006), the court should not deny the retaliation claim of the employee. The court ruled that the provision of Title VII regarding anti retaliation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is broader compared to the Title VII’s anti-discrimination provision, which resolves differences among the circuit courts of appeal on what comprised liable retaliation. In this case, the court emphasized that the provision of Title VII anti-retaliation covers employer’s actions that is materially adverse to a sensible employee. The implication of this ruling is that the employer’s action is harmful if it could deter the employee from creating a charge of discrimination.
More Essay Examples on Civil rights Rubric
Thus, even if the employee’s discrimination case was denied, it does not follow that her retaliation claim should be denied too, because there is a difference between the two Title VIIs. The provision of anti-discrimination forbids discrimination in a work place, while the anti-retaliation prevents the employer to retaliate against the worker’s action to secure the implementation of the provision of Title VII’s anti discrimination (Rozycki & Haase 2006).
The Disparate impact…
I would say that the office violated the desperate impact theory by their action to hire a white applicant even though Miss Phillips was first to apply in the same position, on two grounds: First, the issue raised by Phillips was job related for the position being questioned consistent with the necessity of the business. Second, the policy employed by the office was fair in form but discriminatory in operation, as cited by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke in 1971. Supreme Court held that Title VII not only prohibited obvious discrimination but also practices that is “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation” (HR Guide to the Internet). Although the office may have complied with EEOC Guidelines on Employee Selection Criteria by having eighty percent African American employee, the policy cited for not hiring Phillips was obviously discriminatory and does not prove that it is job related for the position consistent with business necessity. The basis for not hiring Miss Phillips was an overt discrimination because upon her query, the position was confirmed and she was entertained because she was given an application form to fill out by her. If indeed the office strictly enforces that policy, she should not have been entertained out right.
Anne’s case against Bradley contacting company
There is a great possibility that Anne would be successful in the suit she filed against Bradley Contacting. EO 11246 expressly forbids federal contractors and subcontractors to discriminate on the basis of color, race, sex, religion, and national origin. It also requires confirmatory response that will ensure equal employment opportunity regardless of the factors mentioned above (U.S. Department of Labor). Further more, Title VII and Title VI of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 both prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, and religion in the work place. With every law pointing to the prohibition of discrimination in the work place, there is no doubt that Anne would be successful. The company’s allegation that Anne cannot be promoted to skilled position because that job belongs only to men and that most male skilled craft are against women, which are obviously gender discrimination.
Bennie’s Restaurant and the Black employees
If Bennie is sued by the black employees, the employees will likely to succeed because under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the Age discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities, discrimination in any aspect of employment is illegal. These include hiring, and firing, classification of employees, compensation, assignments, transfer, layoff, promotion, and so forth. These laws affirm that Bennie practiced discrimination for not giving his employees the opportunity for promotion and improvement on the basis of race and color (Federal Laws).
Presentation about Title VII pertaining to disparate impact and disparate treatment policies to avoid liability
The difference between disparate impact and disparate treatment policies concerns about the intents of these policies. The disparate impact is concerned on prohibiting employers to employ practices that have unfair adverse impact on members of the sheltered class. Disparate treatment policies on the hand, is concerned about unequal treatment of similarly positioned employees on the basis of their member ship in a protected class by denying them of opportunities while also giving to favored others. This includes failure to promote qualified employees on the basis of age, race, sex, and national origin.
The complaint procedure for disparate impact and a disparate treatment claim as pertain to the EEOC must be free from retaliation. That is, all those who are involved in both the presentation and processing of an EEO complaint should be free from coercion, discrimination, restraints, interference, and retaliation in view of their participation in the EEO complaint process. The second step in this procedure is the setting of the Precomplaint Processing Stage, in which the aggrieved party is required to attend a precomplaint processing procedure. It is during this period that the case is brought to the attention of the senior EEO specialist in which it will take forty-five days before any further development in an attempt to bring early resolution of the complain through amicable settlement. The procedure is quite lengthy and for the purpose of saving some space, we jump to the conclusion that an aggrieved person due to disparate treatment or disparate impact may by-pass complaint procedure and file civil suit directly in the US district court if they could provide the EEOC written notice of intent to filing a case against a certain office.
Defense available to the company against disparate impact claim
Perhaps there is really no available defense against disparate impact and disparate treatment claims as all laws points to the fact that violating these policies are against the law. The only defense left for the company probably is to see to it that they complied with all the provisions of the applicable laws so when cases of disparate impact arises, these provisions of the law will be their own defense.
Suggestion to avoid EEOC Claims
There is only one sure way in order to avoid EEOC claims. That is to fully comply with all the pertinent laws governing the employee-employer relationship. The employers should take extra measures to re-educate their management people from the highest rank to the simple line leaders of the implications of the laws particularly Title VII of both the anti-retaliation and antidiscrimination. Every person holding authority in the work place must have to be acquainted with these laws in order for them to avoid discrimination.
HR Guide to the Internet: EEO: Desperate Impact http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm
Rozycki, C. & Haase, D. Supreme Court Eases Standards for Title CII Retaliation http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1154423136520
US Department of Labor un the 21st Century ( 2008) Equal Employment Opportunity http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/ethnicdisc.htm
Work World Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Description http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/federal_laws_prohibiting_job_discrimination.htm#Federal_Laws_Prohibiting_Job_Discrimination_Q2