Employment discrimination

Discrimination is a treatment taken against a person who belongs to a specific group and the consideration is based on a particular category or class. All forms of discrimination involve sort of rejection behavior. Examples of discrimination are age discrimination, gender discrimination, employment discrimination among others. Practices linked to employment discrimination include bias in promotion, termination, contracting, reimbursement and various types of harassment. Employment discrimination laws focus on preventing discrimination related to age, religion, sex, disability, nationality, color and race by employers. This paper analyzes the concept of employment discrimination under the following cases.

Foster v. Dalton, 71 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 1995)
In this case, the Plaintiff-appellant Sharon C. Foster who was an African-American lady filed a suit against the Secretary of the navy on the basis that she was discriminated due to her race and denied a job in the Newport Naval Hospital. The court ruled in favor of the secretary. The job was instead awarded to a less qualified lady of the white race. Though the employer asserts that he chose the white lady on the basis of merit, that is, experience and knowledge, the plaintiff claimed that the employer had a hidden motive behind the action (Rothstein, et al., 2005).

The undisputed facts reveal that at the time of the dispute the plaintiff was employed at Tinker Air Force Base as a medical technician. The plaintiff did not get the promotion to the position of a budget analyst when the secretary appointed another person to the position. Betty Norton who was a white lady who held the position of a purchasing agent was employed as the budget analyst. The plaintiff filed the case on the basis of racial discrimination.

I do not agree with the courts ruling in favor of the secretary. This was a true of racial discrimination since the Commander Travis directed the civilian program analyst to manipulate the job description in order to make Berry eligible for the job. The description was further doctored in such a way that only Berry suited the job (Rothstein, et al., 2005).

Stopka v. Alliance of Am. Insurers, 141 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 1998)
In this case, Stopka had filled a suit against Alliance of Am. Insurers on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sex. Stopka claimed that she was underpaid compared to male colleagues in the same job grade. This case raised several questions on the issue of similar comparisons. The 7th circuit ruled that the plaintiff did not adequately prove that her position was considerably similar to positions by the male colleagues who were paid a higher salary than Stopka though in the same grade.

The 7th circuit has long realized that proof of discrimination against other workers is relevant only if the plaintiff is able to clearly show that the action taken against himher is based on the grounds of discrimination. Me Too evidence like in the case of Stopka is regularly though not always closely associated with the circumstances of the case in question. Under the circumstances, I only agree with the courts ruling since Stopka was unable to prove her conditions of discrimination. Employers should not discriminate their employees on the basis of gender especially where the workers are performing the same roles like the case of Stopka (Rothstein, et al., 2005).

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995)
This was a case of discrimination on the basis of age. The case was filed by the petitioner Christine McKennon who worked with Nashville Banner LTD. This was a case of whether a worker discharged from employment in breach of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is not entitled to any relieve if after the discharge the employer realizes that there was wrong doing that would have led to termination of the employees services on lawful or legitimate basis. Christine McKennon was discharged as part of the employers strategy to reduce cost considerations through labor reduction. Christine McKennon argued that she was dismissed due to her age which was 62 years at that time.

The ADEA bars any employer from dismissing any person or discriminating such a person in terms of compensation, benefits or privileges on the basis of age. Banner argued that had it discovered Christine McKennons misconduct then it would have dismissed her for that course. McKennon had acted in a questionable way by copying and removing insurance and protection details. Though Banner pleaded guilty of the discrimination offence, the District court awarded Banner a conclusive judgment on the grounds that her misconduct warranted her dismissal. In this case I disagree with the courts ruling since misconduct is immaterial whether McKennon was discriminated or not. This is thus a violation of ADEA of which Banner is guilty (Rothstein, et al., 2005).

Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997)
This case was filed by the petitioner against the respondent on the grounds of employment discrimination suit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When the suit was still pending in court the petitioner got a job with another organization and contacted the defendant for an employment reference. The defendant gave a negative reference in reprisal for his having sued the firm. The suit was filed on the basis of 704(a) of Title VII which bars employers from discriminating against employees or candidates for a position as a result of them seeking Title VIIs protections.

Though the district court ruled that the term employees mentioned in the Title VIIs protections only refers to current employees, the Supreme Court ruled that  the term as applied in the 704(a) of Title VII, includes previous employees, supplicant and can sue defendants for its supposedly penalizing postemployment actions. Although the term employee as used in the 704(a) of Title VII is ambiguous as it does not clearly stated the employees covered, the Supreme Courts ruling was justified since it is unfair to discriminate a former employee in revenge for filing a suit for protection (Rothstein, et al., 2005).

Conclusion
All discrimination cases are handled on individual basis. Failure to adhere to the federal antidiscrimination laws may result to adverse consequences to an employer. In return the benefit plans of the employees are affected. All employers should take time to review the plans to evade from violation of the laws. Employees ought to be treated according to the antidiscrimination laws.

0 comments:

Post a Comment