Gender Issues of People - Essay Example

Gender Issues Carrie Carrie definitely has a case against the newspaper in a number of counts, if not all. To begin with, she has a case against the newspaper for sexual harassment. The kind of treatment that she was getting in the firm, especially during her pregnancy is an act of sexual harassment and must be addressed as thus. The problem with her case would be tat there is no tangible evidence of the harassment; this case would have been made better if she had written a formal letter to her supervisors about the issue (Boland). However, this can be won, as seen in Nichols v Azteca Restaurants. In this case, the defendant had sued the employer for hostile work environment where his male colleagues did not seem to think he was male enough and so ridiculed him. He lost the case but won the case upon appeal where the appeal court upheld that it was evident that the employer had neglected to remedy the situation even after he reported to the management. The newspaper may have the defense that she is only doing this because she has lost her job and that she only using this as a highway to get financial reprieve. With regard to her not being given the medical cover for her pregnancy related health issues, this can be a controversial issue and it may have to depend on a number of issues. For instance, in General Electric Company V. Gilbert, the court concluded that pregnancy issues are exempted from employee sickness issues. Carrier can also sue the newspaper for wrongful termination. The way her job was terminated was unjust and the firm did not take any care or responsibility to protect her. She was fired for being pregnant and only lost her job when she was on a maternity leave. The firm may have a number of defenses against her case, including citing that the economy was forcing the firm to terminate some of its employees. However, tow things are in her side in this matter. To begin with, her position was replaced by another person and this means that the firms was not right sizing but firing her and replacing her with someone else. Secondly, apart from having her job terminated, her column was plagiarized because the new person hired to fill her position was now writing the same exact kind of columns she had been writing for the newspaper, about relationships and sex. She can use this to strengthen her case. However, the newspaper can argue that she only owned the materials she wrote and not the column and the topic itself. This can complicate the case further for her. The court would probably award her in some of these issues. For instance with regard to her sexual harassment, she stands a good chance to be awarded a settlement. With regard to her issue with regard to her medical cover, this may not give her a settlement. She might however have a high chance of getting settlement for her wrongful termination and probably either get further compensation for lost job or the newspaper may be ordered to restore her. She can choose to not be reinstated as this would expose her to more problems at the firm. The newspaper can also defend itself by arguing that the harassment was not done by the firm, because the actual people carrying out the harassment were not her superiors. According to a supreme court decision in Vance v. Ball State University, a person can only be regarded as a supervisor of they have the power to take tangible action against the victim, such as firing or demoting. Miranda Miranda also has a number of cases that she can bring to court. The first one is with regard to sexual harassment. As identified in the case, she had been receiving negative comments with regard to her femininity especially to her choice of dressing. It is not for a firm to decide what constitutes feminine and while any company may have the personal right to choose the mode of dressing for its employees; it cannot determine whether women are supposed to wear pant suits or skirts in order to look feminine. Again, the Nichols v Azteca Restaurants is applicable here and can be used as precedent for the final judgment. However, the problem is that she has never complained to the management about his kind of harassment. These remarks were definitely part of sexual harassment and she can sue the firm on this basis. However, as with Carrie, the biggest problem with presenting her case would be the lack of physical evidence. She however can still win in case. The Vance v. Ball State University can also apply here and the firm can defend itself against the sexual harassment allegation by point that the harassers were not supervisors to the victim. The second case she can bring to court with regard to her work at the fact that she was denied the chance to become partner even though the statistics sowed very well that she deserved it. The firm may defend itself by saying that although she had good qualification, the two partners were more qualified than her and were therefore not chosen over her based on their gender, but on merit. The burden of proof would lie on her side to prove to the judges that she was better qualified that these other partners who were promoted. She can support her case further by citing the negative remarks by her male colleagues that they believed that a woman should never make partner and should only do supportive work instead of trying cases in court. The law requires that firms apply equal employment opportunities, regardless of gender (Paris). It would benefit Miranda to use these negative remarks about her femininity as evidence that the firm was discriminating against women. The numbers at the firm with regard to both female and male employees may also indicate a bias against women. With regard to her issues of pregnancy and white she should terminate it, this is a more complicated issue and there is almost no law. However, the issue making this issue complicated is that fact that the state has passed the laws that makes abortion hard to carry out without her having to inform her husband. The husband in this case is not a person of interest, she as identified in the case, the husband has not refused to support her with the abortion, but she fears that she might hurt her. However, from a legal point of view, she can sue in court the state of New York for passing a law that interferes with her personal space. This will be tricky for her because if she sues the state, it will be hard for her intentions to carry out an abortion not to be known by her husband, and she does not want her spouse to know because he might be affected and this will affect their relationship. She can however ask for closed court process that will not be heard by the public, but this is tricky because the issue is public issue. In such a case, the court may have to rule that the law is contradicting the principle of personal liberty and therefore make the law null and void, or require it to be revised and passed anew. Charlotte Charlotte’s case is really about her daughter, Mia. Mia can sue both the University of New York and the state of New York for her perils under the equal opportunity clause of the 14th amendment. With regard to the state, she can sue it for passing polices and legislations that made her to not get the position at the university, regardless of the fact that she was more than qualified. This can be a hard case because in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the state upheld the right for universities to use affirmative action to be one of its criteria for admitting candidates. Her case can be made better if she can prove (and indeed she can) that she was more equipped than some of the people who were given the position instead of her, only because of some affirmative requirements. She may be needed to prove that affirmative action is no longer necessary as was at the time of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. If another person from another race who had less qualification was admitted due to affirmative action, she can argue that she was denied the position for being white, and this is racism, or discrimination. The state can defend itself by arguing that the state has the right to develop policies that create equity (not equality). The same suit can be brought against the University of New York, with the same argument. The outcomes are likely to be the same. The Cohen v. Brown University can be useful in this case. In Cohen v. Brown University, the Supreme Court found that the university policies were discriminative against women and gave an order for a remedy to be made. Mia can seek for this kind of an order to have the NYU to amend its admission policy. However, the university can argue that if hey amended the admission rules so as not to consider affricative action, Mia would still not qualify because so many other white females are more qualified than her and would then be given precedence over her in admission. Samantha Samantha has a number of cases which she can bring to the court. The first one is with regard to her verbal agreement with her husband. She can sue her husband for failing to be faithful to the verbal agreement where they had agreed that incase of parting ways, he would compensate her. Her husband can have a number of defenses against this. First, due to the fact that with verbal agreement there is no tangible evidence, he can shoes to say that such a an agreement never existed and that Samantha is only trying to take financial advantage of her. The husband can also defend himself by agreeing that the agreement did exist, but only in the assumption that she remained faithful. He can argue that he only entered such an agreement in the belief that she would remain faithful; but that he found that she was cheating with her former boyfriend. Samantha can attack this kind of defense by arguing that being found in the house with her boyfriend did not amount to unfaithfulness. She can also argue that there was nothing in the agreement that required her to not ‘hang out’ with her former friends, including former boyfriends. She can also argue that even if she was cheating, the agreement only addressed separation, but not the cause of separation. The other case that Samantha can take to court is that involving her frozen embryos. She can sue her husband and state that she wants to have them become children. The defense from the husband would be that those embryos are part of his DNA and so he also has right to decide whether he wants them to become babies, he can argue that the only reason that he had agreed on the freezing of the embryos was the fact that he had hope that they (himself and Samantha) were going to have a family together. Works Cited Boland, Mary. Sexual Harassment: Your Guide to Legal Action : what You Should Know and what You Can Do. New York, NY: SphinxLegal, 2002. Print. Paris, Michael. Framing Equal Opportunity: Law and the Politics of School Finance Reform. Boston, MA: Stanford University Press, 2010. Print. Read More