Zimpfer was informed that he was not selected for the position. The position was filed by Brad Merriman, age 33. Out of all the applicants that were considered this was the least qualified applicant. Since this was an outside employee and not very experience. This ordeal was very upsetting to Mr. Zimpfer so he filed a complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
1. Case Cite: [Nafta Traders, Inc. v. Quinn, 339 S.W.3d 84 (Tex. 2011)] 2. Facts: In Nafta Traders, an employee sued her employer for sex discrimination in violation of state law. The dispute was sent to arbitration, where the employee prevailed. The employer demanded the award in court, disputing that it has damages that were either not allowed or for which there was no evidence.
The case of Jordan v. City of New London and Harrigan (1999) centers around Jordan bringing a civil rights action against the city and Harrington alleging that they denied him equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 4, Section 20, of the Connecticut Constitution (Jordan v. City of New London, 2000). The facts as presented to the court are that Jordan and 500 other police applicants voluntarily took the applicant screening examination for being a police officer in the state Connecticut in early 1996. The testing material included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (WPT), which purports to measure cognitive ability. An accompanying manual listed recommended scores for various professions and
Murrel v. Ocean Mecca Motel, Inc., 262 F.3d 253 (2001) Joshua Richard Yascavage 4059778 HOSP302 American Military University In the following case, we will look, at racial, discrimination, when it comes to hotel guests. In Murrell v. Ocean Mecca Motel Inc., we see this when a motel evicted an interracial party under false pretenses. 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 makes it illegal to discriminating based of race in making or enforcing private contracts.
Procedural History: In March 2008, the petitioner filed a pro se claim in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. The District Court dismissed the action stating Wilkins failed to state a claim and later denied
This case was not about intentional discrimination in hiring and promotions nor was it about determining if diverse work places are better for employees. This case focused on diversification solely by racial classification and became an issue of racial balancing. The Court, therefore found this practice unconstitutional which is why it overturned the original
However, because they did not do so, there is a presumption that they deemed that transfer to be no longer
The company claimed that the requirements were necessary to meet the qualifications of the position sought after, but it was later proven that those positions did not require those requirements. Mr. Griggs legal defense team claimed that “In-deed, the white employees hired before the requirements were imposed performed entirely satisfac-torily.” ( NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 2016). Duke Power Company selection criteria was obviously flawed and wasn’t in accordance with the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. Their selection criteria limited people of a certain race and created a division among social classes.
Charles Mitchell (2013) went on to say, “by not promoting the more successful White employees, was this an act of illegal disparate treatment under Title VII (p. 43)? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal disparate treatment. Assisting the U.S. Supreme Court in their ruling is the established Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures (UGESP). The guidelines state, when an employer determines that adverse impact was evident in its testing process, they shall (1) valid the procedures (test), (2) confirm the linkage to its job, (3) consider alternative testing procedures (Mitchell, p. 45).
Critics point out, like in the case of a job opening, that these types of policies create an unfair scenario where people might get hired, not because they are the best qualify candidate, but because there is a need to follow regulations that favor certain
This issue can be related to the story cited in the book; whereby, Woodson refers to the black employees who questioned the authority of an African-American
Racial discrimination under Title VII applies to private employers and emphasizes cases with an
130). The notion of unlawful employment practices encircles those activities which cause an adverse effect on members of a protected class. Certain practices, widely known as ‘disparate treatment’, imply treatment of some employees or candidates in a different way, such as requiring women to pass a driving test prior to applying for a job, but nor requiring men to pass the test when they apply for the same job. It is extremely important to note that practices which make a disparate impact on members of protected classes may be viewed as fair in the eyes of employers, but entail detrimental influence on members of protected classes.
Even if the black man put more effort into the job, and got more done than the white
It is a very useful article which provides counter arguments to four main criticisms of positive discrimination, which are: 1) Failure to select the “best” candidate; 2) The undermining of meritocracy; 3) The negative impact on the beneficiaries; 4) Injustice of reverse discrimination. This article starts with the analogy of the “shackled runner” given by the US President Lyndon Johnson who introduced affirmative action legislation in 1965 aimed to redress discrimination towards
