One of her biggest challenges was working with Douglas Henry, who was the company’s key punch and computer sections supervisor (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009). Rabidue and other female colleagues were exposed to Henry’s vulgarity, hateful comments towards women, and obscene posters demoralizing women. Upper management had been informed of it, but had only given Henry friendly advice to curb the behavior, which had not been effective. Rabidue was also faced with challenges of not being able to perform her duties or receive the same courtesies and benefits as the other managers such as: free lunches, free gasoline, a telephone credit card or entertainment privileges (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2009). She was unable to take clients to lunch because of how it would be perceived.
An extremely important court case during the Progressive Era, Muller v. Oregon not onl improved the working conditions for women, but expanded the need for legal evidence for a court case too. It all began when women workers were forced to stay longer than their normal time, violating an already-existing Oregon law that stated women could not work longer than 10 hours. Curt Muller, the boss, was fined, but soon brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court so it could be overturned. The event reached Florence Kelly, head of the National Consumers’ League, and she quickly recruited a skillful lawyer, Louis D. Brandeis, to help her with the case. With only a month to prepare and the Court having struck down a similar law in New York to regulate hours, the court hearing began.
A two month training period for all employees would being in search for employees with the right attitude and ability. They need to use some of the RDH employees to help keep the business going because of their connections. Recommendations: • Do not do away with the guanxi. That is what kept the hotel running. • The training program should be for 90 days and lays offs should be based on performance, quality, and experience, not how fast you are.
MEMORANDUM TO: Managing Partner FROM: Ali Salameh RE: Memo 2; Garden State Tutoring Title VII Issue QUESTION PRESENTED Can Courtney Harrison establish a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on her supervisor Bill Drayton’s conduct of subjecting her to view and discuss photos of nude women while in his office, and emailing her such photos with suggestive comments? BRIEF ANSWER Probably yes. Hostile work environment sexual harassment is a prohibited form of sexual discrimination under Title VII. Courtney Harrison (Courtney) will likely have a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment when applying the Third Circuit test: (1) intentional discrimination because of sex; (2) discrimination was severe or pervasive; (3) discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff; (4) a reasonable person would find the work environment as hostile; and (5) the existence of respondeat superior liability. Bill Drayton (Bill) intentionally discriminated against Courtney’s sex when she was subjected to photos, questions, and comments regarding nude women.
The medical staff nurse pleaded guilty to one count of wrongful disclosure of individual health information for personal gain. The case is currently awaiting a trial, but the nurse will be penalized for violating HIPAA. The argument found in this article was the nurse put the whole clinic in jeopardy. The physician stated there are consequences and made staff aware of the consequences of violating patient privacy. The solution was terminating the employee and providing briefing staff members on HIPAA laws and regulations.
She was caught and reprimanded by her supervisor for her display of insubordination by breaking a company rule. She chose to continue using the clean restroom vs. the dirty portable ones and as a result was terminated for it. She sued under Title VII for gender discrimination and the lower courts found that a disparate impact was suffered by Lynch due to anatomical differences of females vs. males and their associated risks. As a supervisor, I believe that subordinates and their safety must always take priority. As an employer, positive steps could have been advanced by key decision makers to properly solve the issue of unsatisfactory latrine accommodations for its female employees.
By 1987, she was regarded as a homemaker expert and signed a $200,000 deal as a lifestyle consultant and pitch woman for discount retailer with Kmart to develop a line of stylish but affordable merchandise. In 1990, Martha divorced her husband, Andy Stewart after he lived with her former assistant for three years. In July of 1991, The First issues of, “Martha Stewart Living,” were published. Just two years later, she started her own syndicated television show. In 1997, she created, “Martha Stewart Living Omni media,” to encompass all her business.
He said his name was Dan and that he was the General Manager of the store. I asked him about my application status and he looked it up and gave me an interview later that week! When I came back, I had on jeans and a T-shirt, but he didn’t mind. We sat in the lobby and talked for a half an hour and he offered me the job! I was so excited because it was my first real job, and I had a friend from school that worked there also, her name’s Jessiee.
Women who are able to keep their jobs, and find a reasonable and affordable childcare facility are impacted by the glass ceiling barrier. If a single woman is considering having another child, not being able to bring home an equal pay for the same work duties a man earns, is a clear example of how the glass ceiling barrier is a penalty for women who have children while working a job. Although the glass ceiling barrier is mainly used for top level positions, it also affects women of all economic levels. “In 2002, American employers paid out over $263 million in sex discrimination lawsuits.” (Murphy and Graff 36) Companies like Wall-Mart in 2007, Home Depot in 1997, and Publix Super Markets in 1997 have all been sued for gender discrimination by numerous female workers, and all have had to settle out of court. (Trumball
Both were wrongfully terminated for those legitimate complaints. In each case a judge ruled that the termination was wrongful due to legitimate safety concerns, however both still have negative marks on their files in the background screening firm USIS and their Drive-A-Check (DAC)division. Even after speaking with a DAC representative, it is unclear whether Mr. Carter or Mr. Griffith will ever have the negative remarks removed from their records. In 2001 Ingrid Morales was fired from her job as a makeup artist at Saks Fifth Avenue. After she was listed with USIS as having "unauthorized taking of merchandise” on her record, she sued the screening firm.