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
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