Disparate Treatment: Illegal Discrimination Case Study

Good Essays
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act brought about two chief concepts of illegal discrimination. These concepts are disparate treatment and disparate impact (Harper, 2016). This section of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Individuals cannot lawfully be denied employment opportunities or have their employment adversely affected merely because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (EEOC Website, 2016).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate against an employee or potential employee and enforced the legal theory of disparate treatment. Disparate treatment exists when an employee
…show more content…
Costa. The decision by the United States Supreme Court in this case clears up the standard of proof that is necessary for plaintiffs to be successful in obtaining a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The Supreme Court ruled that direct evidence was not required. Before this decision, plaintiffs in such "mixed-motive" cases, i.e., a case in which an employer had both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for making an employment decision, were only successful in getting their cases heard if they had direct evidence of discrimination, now they are no longer required to present direct evidence, but can present evidence of any type. As a result, it is now easier for plaintiffs to have their discrimination cases seen before a jury.
In Desert Palace v. Costa, the plaintiff, Catherine Costa, claimed she was terminated for a legitimate reason (a physical altercation in a warehouse elevator) and an illegitimate reason (her gender). Costa had a history of problems with management and co-workers that eventually led to disciplinary actions being taken against her by employer. Costa’s involvement in a physical altercation with a male co-worker led to her termination from Desert Palace. Both employees were disciplined but because of the male employees clean disciplinary record he only received a five-day
…show more content…
Costa there is an increased possibility that an employer may be found liable of discrimination if an employee brings a mixed-motive case against them. Due to the increased likelihood of being found liable employers should take all possible steps to avoid any discrimination claims. They should clearly communicate with all employees their policy against unlawful employment discrimination and harassment. The information should be circulated throughout the workplace on a regular basis and strictly enforced by managers and supervisors. Employers should also carefully review all possible terminations for discriminatory treatment before actual

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Parol Evidence Rule

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Wiencek further argues that the trial court erred by considering “parol evidence to vary the effective date of the [B108 agreement] and to controvert the integration clause.” CHH, for its part, avers that the admission of parol evidence was proper because it was offered to determine whether the contract was effective. We hold that the circuit court did not violate the parole evidence rule because extrinsic evidence was not offered to add or modify any terms to the B108 agreement. Generally, parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of an integrated contract. Foreman v. Melrod, 257 Md. 435, 441 (1970) (“‘All prior and contemporaneous negotiations are merged in the written instrument, which is treated as the exclusive…

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Lifestyle Statute

    • 1035 Words
    • 4 Pages

    California Labor Code section 96(k) protects lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises. This law appears to be broad, however, it is restrictive. In Barbee v. Household Automotive, the Court held that 96(k) did not create a substantive right; instead, it was a procedure for the Labor Commissioner to uphold already recognized constitutional rights. This essentially means the California lifestyle statute only protects previously “recognized constitutional rights.” Thus, based on state common law, this statute is inadequate in protecting applicants from employers screening of their Facebook accounts since it will not protect an employee 's online behavior and conduct outside of…

    • 1035 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    citizens. Although the Executive Order 9808 held equality, it did not prevent the states from promoting segregation and discrimination. For instance, in Sipuel v. Oklahoma State Board of Regents, Marshall, Sipuel’s civil rights attorney, argued that the denial of Sipuel’s admission because of her race and color was considered to be illegal. In addition, Marshall claimed that the words “separate” and “equal” were not equivalent, and could not be used together at the same time (Ladino, 13). Although the court ruled that the university’s rejection of Sipuel was unconstitutional in terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court claimed that desegregation was not the problem that interrupted Sipuel’s admission.…

    • 1013 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The law was interpreted by the Court as an utter intrusion of the “right of contract between employer and employee” then stated that the general right to make contract relative to his business is part of the liberty that is protected by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In the 14th Amendment Due Process clause it states that it is not allowed to deny any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. What they are basically stating is that the contract that is formed between an employee and employer is guarded under the 14th Amendment as long as it is reasonable and just(Lawnix,…

    • 1624 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Baldus Study

    • 1440 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Here it is evident that the Supreme Court completely ignores its responsibility to protect minorities as prosecutors are granted the ability to use their preemptive strikes in racially- motived ways so long as they do not explicitly state their racism. The Court ruled in Batson v. Kentucky that prosecutors are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race when selecting juries (Alexander, 116). However, prosecutors have found a way to work around this ruling, which has been deemed completely legal by the Supreme Court decision in Purkett v.…

    • 1440 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In such circumstances as the aforementioned cases, the Court should have had no part in the discussion surrounding the laws enacted, as it was the duty of the states to work within themselves to find a resolution. Injustice that would warrant Court involvement, in my opinion, would be that which impeded upon an individual’s right to live in the nation. Cases like Heart of Atlanta v US and Cooper v Aaron are ones in which Court involvement were necessary, because an individual’s constitutional right was impeded upon by laws, de facto and de jure. Issues where the individual is not eligible, under the instances in which they find themselves, to use their rights found in the United States’ Constitution’s Bill of Rights - and following amendments - should be brought to the Court. Such injustices harm the people, but in cases like Term Limits and Arizona there was no harm to the people, because the people made conscious decisions to act.…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This would make the legislature unconstitutional and the legislature could be modified or scrapped entirely to fit within the framework of the US Constitution. States cannot enact a statute that violates or infringes upon the first amendment rights of an entity; the entities in this case being GMI and HDTV. In this case the free speech being violated is these companies right to commercial speech which is protected under the first amendment. However, limits can be placed upon commercial free speech, but in this case the limit restricts commercial free speech too heavily and the purpose is unsupported for protecting…

    • 972 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    United States V. Eichman was very different because unlike the Texas law in Johnson’s case the federal law does not target expressive conduct on the basis of the content of the message. 6. Justice William Brennan stated, “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” I completely agree with Justice Brennan’s thoughts on how the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violates an individual first amendment right because of how others feel. The courts believed that the federal law goes well beyond this by “criminally prescribing expressive conduct because of its likely communicative…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    • Chiefs have commitments under well being and security law to study perils in the workplace. Risk examinations should be did that address all perils that may achieve harm in your workplace. • Organizations must give you information about the threats in your workplace and how you are guaranteed, also show and set you up on the most capable system to deal with the perils. • Administrators must advice delegates on prosperity and security issues. Guidance must be either prompt or through a security delegate that is either picked by the workforce or assigned by a trade union.…

    • 1554 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for anyone to discriminate basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. It also has a rule of making it illegal to stand against any person who complaints of discrimination, has filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit (USA, n.d.). This provision came into play in a time when unfair acts where very high regarding such things as women being treated unfairly. Women did not receive fair employment opportunities compared to men applying for the same job. EEO is a way which within an organization in order to tolerate diversity among…

    • 2066 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays