Anti-Discrimination Case Study

According to the Cambridge dictionary, a simple definition of anti-discrimination laws is “laws opposed to or intended to prevent discrimination treatment of someone because of their age, sex, disability, race, sexual harassment, and so on)”. However, a more complex definition according to the article “Deliberative freedoms and Asymmetric features of Anti-discrimination law” defines anti-discrimination laws as “anti- discrimination law existence is to protect people’s interest in possessing a set of ‘deliberative freedoms’ – that is, freedoms to make decisions about how to live their lives without having to take into account, as a cost, their ‘normatively extraneous traits’ (such as gender, race, and age)” (Smith, Campbell 248). According to

Kleiner Perkins This case is the perfect example to showcase the constraints of the anti-discrimination laws when it comes to individual cases. According to the article “Gender and the Tournament: Reinventing Antidiscrimination Law in an Age of Inequality”, it states that “Ellen Pao’s case provides an example of the limitations of Title VII as a check on the determinations made within such a system when the case is framed solely as one of unequal treatment of an individual woman in accordance with the ordinary norms of a competitive workplace” (Cahn, Carbone, Levit 474). Facts of the case: Ellen Pao worked at Kleiner, a venture capital company, as a junior partner, with plans of moving on to the highest levels. One of the first problems she had in the company was with a male junior partner, Nazre, who made sexual advances towards her, she refused at first and then he started leaving her out of business decisions. She later gave in, but then eventually broke it off. She complained to management and the HR department, but no action was taken. According to Pao, she said the management told her to either accept it, or even consider continuing her relationship with Nazre. Nazre was later promoted and became Pao’s supervisor and his office was opposite hers. She also complained about this and was asked to change offices, she refused. For about three years, Pao never received any promotion and she was just labeled as someone that complains alot. She was still being left out

He was around sixty-three years old when he was fired. He was replaced with a female attorney that was in her thirties. Levin complained on the basis of age and sex discrimination. However, the Office of the attorney general responded that he wasn’t replaced, rather he was fired because of poor performance. Levin went ahead to sue them on the basis of age and sec discrimination. The office of the attorney general however, won summary judgement by showing the court that Levin was not a qualified employee. Levin lost the case due to lack of performance and expertise. This case is an example of “Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967” which fall under anti-discrimination laws. According to the article “Employment Law—Age Discrimination—Seventh Circuit Holds that the ADEA Does Not Preclude”, it states