Federal Constitutional Provision Tends to Bar Employers

A workplace should have a reasonably humane and conducive working environment for purposes of enhanced productivity and efficient service delivery. In reality, this is always not the case since several reports of stereotypical practices presently dominate various organizations and this greatly impedes relations, growth, and development (Eisenberg, 2009). Discrimination in the place of work today is a very serious social problem that silently affects almost all workforces in different organizations around the world including learning institutions even in developed and advanced countries like the US.

Stereotypical practices in the place of work usually take various forms and dimensions particularly among diverse communities. For example, it may take the form of race, age, religion, ethnicity, originality, and sexual orientation. Similarly, it may equally take the form of weight, height, disability status, skin color, and gender among others as witnessed in the case study under scrutiny. Precisely, victims of discrimination normally report incidences of threats and harassments, which tend to lower self-esteem and general standing in the community (Saucedo, 2009). Generally, workplace discrimination is an unethical, immoral, and an illegal practice that deserves discouragement in its entirety especially in a diverse community such as the US.

In the US, the legislation advocates for diversity and inclusivity as enshrined in the federal legislation under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Saucedo, 2009). In fact, this federal constitutional provision tends to bar employers from engaging in certain forms of arbitrary discrimination of workforces based on sex, race, religion, color, and nationality or origin (Malos, 2010). This does not exclude colleges, universities and other learning institutions both public and privately owned such as in elementary schools where the complainant works.

In reality, the female teacher experienced open discrimination in the institution particularly originating from the school’s principal and this contravenes her rights in line with constitutional provisions. Threats from the principal regarding change of classroom grade especially for those who disagree with his point of reasoning or his stance, amounts to workplace intimidation. Threats or elements of harassments in the workplace is a direct violation of the applicable labor laws, rules as well as regulations and therefore the society should discourage the same including organizations (Eisenberg, 2009). Consequently, she has strong grounds as provided for in the constitution to seek legal redress.

Additionally, extending the responsibility of personally purchasing nearly all classroom facilities other than desks is equally out of order concerning applicable laws, rules and regulations that safeguard workplace relations and responsibilities (Malos, 2010). The institution should provide all teachers with all the necessary teaching materials and facilities and compelling them to make financial contributions towards purchase of the same is equally in violation of their rights as highlighted in the constitution. Moreover, retaliation by the principal specifically six times in the last four years particularly directed at female employees further complicates the situation. Generally, she has a strong case to file in connection with workplace harassment, which the law disallows.

In conclusion, discrimination in the place of work is one of the unethical, immoral, and illegal practices that are ongoing in various parts of the world especially in diverse multiracial, multiethnic communities. Despite criminalization, it still proceeds silently in various states in the US. A case worth mentioning is in relation to the case study scenario, which is not an isolated one in the US. In reality, the teacher experienced discrimination and therefore has a strong legal ground to seek redress in line with prevailing labor laws, rules alongside regulations