Hrm Case Rection Paper

In this case discrimination based on religion applies. Saying exactly, it is freedom of religion and its expression. According to Title VII of The Civil Rights Act (1964), “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Section 703). In this case the woman was discharged from her position because she refused to wear pants because of her religion.

She was discharged unlawfully, as even EEOC states about this the following, “…an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices. This applies…to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons” (Section “Religious Discrimination”, EEOC Laws, Regulations, Guidance & MOUs). Taking all of these into consideration, judges should address these key points and decide in favor of the woman. 2. EEOC v. AT&T, Research Laboratories Division Subject: Age discrimination Law: 1967 – Age discrimination in Employment Act

Protected classification: Age According to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967), “It shall be unlawful for an employer refuse to hire or to discharge any individual…because of such individual’s age” (Section 4). The judges should decide in favor of the 50-year old man, because the company refused to hire him not because the younger person was more qualified, but because they “really wanted a younger person”. Therefore, the company’s decision refuse to hire the old man was unlawful. 3. Alvarez v. Department of Veterans Affairs (March 6, 2003)

Subject: Not to speak Spanish in a certain area Law: Can refer to Civil Rights Act, but judges should decide in favor of the company Protected classification: Language In this case the employees were required to speak other languages than Spanish, as they served non-Spanish speaking customers. It was lawful, because the company does this only at the reception, and it is directed to customer service, as the customers do not speak Spanish. The company does not discriminate employees in this case, therefore, the judges should decide in favor of the company. 4.

A suit was filed against L’Oreal U. S. A. , Inc. , claiming that the cosmetics giant discriminated against a former female Senior Director by subjecting her to a hostile work environment Subject: Discriminatory comments and workplace harassment Laws: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Age Discrimination in Employment Act Protected Classification: Age This case violates the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Age Discrimination in Employment Act, referring to negative comments regarding an employee’s age when referring to employees 40 and over.

According to EEOC, “…the employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees…if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action” (Section “Harassment”, EEOC Laws, Regulations, Guidance & MOUs). As the employer didn’t take corrective action, and created the hostile work environment, the judges should decide in favor of the Senior Director. 5. EEOC v. John Q. Hammons Hotels d/b/a Holiday Inn – Northglenn Subject: Refusal to hire deaf but qualified employee

Law: 1990 – Americans with Disabilities Act Protected classification: Disability According to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, “qualified individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who…can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires” (Title I, sec. 101, part 8). As the girl was qualified for her position and she could communicate with customers in many different ways, the decision of refusal to hire the girl was unlawful, and judges should decide in favor of the girl.

6. EEOC v. SPD Technologies, Inc. Subject: Low wage payment because of sex Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protected classification: Sex According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit…his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s … sex” (Section 703, 2).

The company paid her a low wage because of her sex, and it didn’t refer to the performance or the qualifications of the woman. She performed the work equally with the male workers, therefore the judges should decide in favor of the woman. 7. EEOC v. Lubrication Technologies, Inc. Subject: Refusal to hire a woman because of “male dominated business” Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protected classification: Sex There are several points that should be considered. First, the company’s promotion policy stated that they preferred current employees with experience.

Second, the company said that it wants a “male dominated business”, without clearly explaining why the woman does not fit to the position, and hired an inexperienced man instead. As the women had been working in the company for several years and had experience, and could perform a better job rather than a man, the sex discrimination can be applied, as the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire any individual…because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Section 703).

8. Case # 8 Subject: New hiring policy “males with athletic ability and talent. ” Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protected classification: Sex In this case several points should be clarified. First of all, the company established a new job description and advertisement that they need men with athletic abilities and talent. It means that they did it beforehand, clearly stating that the work is hard and needs strong people. However, the woman worked in the company before, which means that she already experienced it and proved that women can do this work as well as men.

Taking this into consideration and applying the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the judges may decide in favor of the woman. 9. EEOC v. Razzoo’s (2008) Subject: Preference of girls behind the bar of the restaurant rather than men Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protected classification: Sex This case applies to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as the restaurant did not state clearly why they want only girls behind the bar. It can be considered as sex discrimination, as men can do this work equally with women, and they are qualified for this job.

Therefore, applying the sex discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act, the judges should decide in favor of the men employees. 10. EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (2008) Subject: Refusal to hire a man in a wheelchair Law: 1990 – Americans with Disabilities Act Protected classification: Disability In this case, the employer refused to hire a person in a wheelchair without reasonable explanations. The employer did not specify in a job description what kind of people he wants to fill the position.

The man applied for any available position and was qualified for the “greeter” position, but was refused for some reason, which shows that he might be refused because of his disability. According to the Americans with disabilities Act, “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job” (Title I, sec.

101, part8). As the employer qualified the man, and did not state in a job description anything about disabilities, it was unlawful to refuse to hire him. 11. EEOC v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (2008) Subject: Assistance with reading for disabled people Law: 1990 – Americans with Disabilities Act Protected classification: Disability

In this case it is lawful to ask assistance in performing tasks having disability, because according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer must provide “existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities and reasonable adjustment to a job or work environment that makes it possible for an individual with a disability to perform job duties” (Title I, sec 101, part 9a). It means that if the employer hires people with disabilities, he should provide all the accommodations for the employees, like reading assistance for trainings as in this case.

12. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989): Subject: Harassment Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protected classification: Sex In this case the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should apply. According to EEOC, “…the employer will be liable for harassment by non-supervisory employees…if it knew, or should have known about the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action” (Section “Harassment”, EEOC Laws, Regulations, Guidance & MOUs).

Although it was proved that the woman was aggressive towards the clients, it was unlawful to harass her about her interpersonal skills and make sex-based comments. That is why, the judges can decide in favor of the woman. 13. Hodgson v. Brookhaven General Hospital (1970): Subject: Paying different amounts of wages based on sex Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Protected classification: Sex In this case the company classified the same position with the same job description for men and women, and set higher wages for men.

According to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit…his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s sex” (Section 703, 2). It means that it is illegal to differentiate the same position between men and women by different wages, therefore, judges should decide in favor of the women with lower wages.