Labor Law in the USA - Essay Example

Jill can not use this situation as a defense to a Title VII action. This can be analyzed to mean that she used the excuse that could discriminate against the Hispanic crew members. EEOC compliance requires that employers should not discriminate against people for employment based on their color, nationality, or race.

Question 3
Affirmative action is a plan containing statistical information indicating the association of precise jobs between eligible people, especially in metropolitan recruiting areas, and the actual number of employees employed (Goldman and Corrada 194). Conversely, quotas are never allowed except in situations where they are directed by the federal court as a result of continued discrimination. In essence, goals are established when the fraction of underrepresented is less than what is expected and available in the recruitment area. However, the key element is that the availability depends on individuals having the required qualifications for the job, not just the percentage of minorities.

Question 4
Title VII of the civil rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination. This law protects mothers of young children from workplace discrimination (Goldman and Corrada 200). It is the responsibility of employers to prevent harassment directed at caregivers from occurring in the workplace. Employees subjected to such harassment are required to follow the employer’s harassment complaint process. In case the employee report the matter to the employer and no action is taken against the supervisor, the employee can sue the employer for a hostile work environment that violated Title VII. If the investigator determines that the employee was subjected to a hostile work environment, the court may rule that the employer was liable.

Question 5
In the legal definition, sexual harassment is considered to be an undesirable vocal, bodily, or visual demeanor of a sexual nature that affects working conditions (Goldman and Corrada 200). Firstly, going by this definition, it is apparent that the employee in the current scenario can sue the employer for sexual harassment. However, the employees would be required by the court to prove the claim of sexual harassment. Therefore, she needs to prove she belongs to a protected class and that the harassment complained of was based on sex. In this case, the employee is a woman and is protected under anti-discrimination law. The act of her supervisor touching her back qualifies as physical conduct of a sexual nature, and his making of an “untoward” statement qualifies to be as verbal conduct of a sexual nature. Nevertheless, in determining the case, the court may look into some issues. For example, as an employee, it is advisable to report such cases to the employer in the company under the published sexual harassment policy and give them a chance to solve the problem (Goldman and Corrada 201). In this case, if the worker does not report to the employer first, she might lose the case. The law states that sexual harassment has to be severe or pervasive. In this regard, since the incident occurred once, can not be enough for a lawsuit.

Question 6
National origin discrimination entails treating employees unfavorably because they belong to a particular nationality. Among other things, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits hiring and firing people based on their nationality (Goldman and Corrada 202). The white, non-Latino meat cutter can sue the company for national origin discrimination. This is true because he was replaced with a Latino worker. To establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination, the employee may rely on either direct or circumstantial evidence. In the current scenario, the employee can use circumstantial evidence citing his replacement with a Latino worker.

Question 7
Title VII further tackles issues of discrimination based on sex stereotyping. The fact that the firefighter begins to have administrative troubles after exhibiting a more feminine demeanor means that the administration could be discriminating against him based on his condition. However, the firefighter should prove that the trouble he is having with the administration is not far from the employer preferring a woman to him (Goldman and Corrada 200). Read More