Benko made the statement that she would “probably not” get the position (Twomey, (2013), p. 537). In 2004, Zippittelli filed a complaint with the EEOC and received the right-to-sue letter in 2005. “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbids discrimination against men and women over 40 years of age by employers, unions, employment agencies, and the federal government,”(Twomey, (2013), p. 534). 1). Would not a reasonable layperson in the position of the applicant think that she had been discriminated against because of age?
Week 3 Case Study: Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. HRMG 5700 – Employment Law Week 3 Case Study: Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Pam Huber, while working for Wal-Mart as dry grocery order filler, sustained a permanent injury to her right arm and hand and could no longer perform the essential job functions. When she asked to be reassigned to a router position as a reasonable accommodation, she was required to compete with other applicants for this position, and after not being hired for this position and being placed in a maintenance position she filed suit under the ADA. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory policy of hiring the most qualified applicant for all job vacancies and therefore was not required to reassign Huber to the router position. Huber filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted Huber’s motion and Wal-Mart appealed. The issue before the court was whether “an employer has an obligation to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant equivalent position when the employer has an already established policy to hire or promote the most qualified to the position” (Twomey, 2013, p. 566).
Coleen and five other female employees filed a wrongful termination and sexual harassment lawsuit against BNC when the work environment turned hostile in 2005. According to the lawsuit Coleen was starting to question loans a certain male wholesaler was submitting to her. Upon Coleen evaluating the loan information, she noticed some of the numbers (salaries and value of homes) did not look right. When Coleen mentioned this to the male wholesaler, he in turn told her not to worry about and then began to bribe Coleen so that she would let the loans be accepted. Sylvia Vega Smith, a mother of four children, worked as a wholesaler for BNC and was making commission money hand over fist; $16,000 per month.
Between 1988 to 2007, there have been an increase in national origin by 5%, age discrimination increase by 29%, and a pregnancy bias increase by 26%. One example of an EEOC discrimination violation was the New York based company, Verizon Communications Inc. incident which reached a settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission resolving two lawsuits that alleged the company and its predecessors discriminating against pregnant women (“Verizon”). Over thousands of women claimed that they did not receive service credit toward their retirement benefits when they were out on pregnancy or maternity leave and under terms of the settlement, women who took maternity or pregnancy leave from 1965 to 1977 received seven additional weeks of service credit for every leave taken as compared to the women who took leave after 1977, where women only received two weeks’ credit per leave (“Verizon”). Another example of an EEOC discrimination was a religious discrimination at a Burger King Franchisee located in Dallas, Texas. “According to the EEOC's lawsuit (Civil Action No.
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 89 NM 575, 555 P.2d 696 (1976) Facts: June 4, 1974, Zelma Mitchell was terminated for misconduct from Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc. June 12, 1974, Zelma Mitchell applied from unemployment benefits and was not granted it because of her termination for misconduct. On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell filed an appeal and the Appeal Tribunal reversed the decision and was reinstated for benefits on August 28, 1974. Lovington appealed the Tribunal's decision and again the decision was reversed and Mrs. Mitchell was disqualified. Mrs. Mitchell applied for and was granted certiorari and the District Court reversed and reinstated benefits to Mrs. Mitchell on January 16, 1976. Issue: Zelma Mitchell, the petitioner's actions constituted misconduct so to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits.
Bill Drayton (Bill) intentionally discriminated against Courtney’s sex when she was subjected to photos, questions, and comments regarding nude women. The discrimination was pervasive; Courtney was subjected five times a week to Bill’s conduct for ten months. The discrimination detrimentally affected her work performance when she sought medical leave. A reasonable woman could find Bill’s conduct to produce a hostile work environment. The fifth prong depends on the actions taken hereinafter by employer Garden State Tutoring (GST) and is not at issue now.
Martin on probation until a full scale investigation can be run to verify either the client’s or Mr. Martin’s stories. If the allegations against Mr. Martin are indeed legitimate, then I find that it would be necessary to terminate Mr. Martin’s employment with the agency because of this obvious sexual harassment. “Sexual harassment has been a fixture of the workplace since women first began to work outside the home. Although true epidemiological studies do not exist, large-scale surveys of working women suggest that approximately 1 of every 2 women will be harassed at some point during their academic or working lives” (Fitzgerald,
An important example is the Supreme Court case Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986): “Plaintiff Vinson claimed that she had submitted to the unwanted sexual advances of her supervisor in order to hold onto her job. Although her supervisor denied her charges and the bank he worked for disavowed any knowledge of misbehavior, her suit finally reached the Supreme Court after six years of litigation, where a unanimous Court determined that the creation of a “hostile work environment” through sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination”
Together they fought women’s battles in the nineteenth century until Anthony got arrested. In Rochester, New York, in November 1872, Susan B. Anthony herself and her sisters succeeded in casting their votes. Acting under advice from her lawyer, they had convinced the registars of the propriety of their claims and had been allowed to deposit their ballots. Two weeks later, they were arrested. At her arraignment hearing, Susan refused to deposit bail when set.
On November 1, 1872 Anthony and a group of fifty women, a group Anthony organized herself, arrived at a local barbershop in Rochester, New York and demanded to register to vote. When the election inspectors denied her request, Anthony was not surprised and was prepared to not back down. This attitude Anthony possessed was a reoccurring trait she presented throughout her lifetime that would eventually lead to the reform she strived for. After failing to get approval peacefully, Anthony then threatened to sue the inspectors with her lawyer for a large sum of money and quoted the Fourteenth Amendment citizen’s provision. (sight) The inspectors approved her to register after she stated her admirable knowledge of the constitution, demonstrating how well she prepared for this day by studying all laws affiliated with an individual’s rights.