Week 8 Final Case Analysis

Week 8 Final Case Analysis

DeVry University, Keller Graduate School of Management *
Course
HRM 593

CASE ANALYSIS Travon Dale Smith Sunday, August 28th Employment Law – 61791 HRM 593 Professor Lorenzo Bowman 1
CASE ANALYSIS Chapter 3: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Case:Ali v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 68 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,188, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8079 p.152 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Plaintiff:Ali Defendant:Mount Sinai Hospital Facts:Ali is an African American who’s an employeeat Mount Sinai Hospital. The hospital believed her clothing standard to be eccentric. Issue:Theoffendedparty (Ali) is suing litigant (Mount Sinai Hospital) for the racial discrimination infringing upon Title VII, for oppressive requirement of Ali’s clothing regulation. The court found that the employee offered no intensive proof of prejudicial implementation, so the court must choose between limited options to track down favor of the employer. Applicable Law:Title VII makes it an unlawful work practice for an employer “to come up short or deny or to recruit or release any individual, or in any case to oppress any person with regard to his/her pay, terms, conditions, and honors of business (Bennett-Alexander, 2022, p. 152). Holding:The court tracked down no adequate proof from the employee against the employer distinguishing discrimination (Bennett-Alexander, 2022, p. 152). 2
CASE ANALYSIS Reasoning:It is undisputed that the hospital subtleties a three page clothing standard for every one of the employees, counting their unit agents. It is given that the style picked ought to be “moderate” with keeping an expert picture in nursing. As the offended party expressed, the sign of the said code was that the staff needed to dress and prepare themselves in a moderate way (Bennett-Alexander, 2022, p. 152). Case Questions: 1. What do you think of the way in which Ali was approached by Dr. Shields about her violation of the dress code? Does this approach seem advisable for a manager to do? What could have been done instead?The way Dr. Shields moved toward Ali as I would like to think it wasn’t the correct way and to move toward her and offer the comments of saying how she wants to thoroughly search in the mirror and that she has a place with the zoo doesn’t check out and not moral particularly for a higher person position than the employee. 2. How much of a role do you think different cultural values played in this situation? Explain. Cultural vibes assume a significant part in any profession field a person goes into. In any case especially in this present circumstance it most certainly showed that the kind of haircut Ali wore should have been thought about with the employer so they are conscious about what cultural hairstyles are. 3. What can the employer do to avoid even the appearance of unfair enforcement of its dress policy in the future?Later on, to stay away from the presence of unjustifiable requirement the employer needs to step up to the plate and truly train their directors completely and ensure that 3
CASE ANALYSIS they comprehend cultural vibes too on the most proficient method to deal with the clothing standards with the employees assuming they are abusing them. Conclusion:The court infers that there is not a great explanation to accept that Ali will actually want to give proof at the preliminary proof from which the jury presumes that there was unfair involvement. The movement of the case was excused (Bennett-Alexander, 2022, p. 152). 4

CASE ANALYSIS Chapter 7: National Origin Discrimination Case:Garcia v. Spun Steak Co., 998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1993) pg. 386 Plaintiff:Garcia and Buitrago Defendant:Spun Steak Co., Facts:Spun Steak Co. employed 33 workers, 24 of whom are Spanish-speakers. Two of the Spanish speakers speak no English. Spun Steak Co. sanctioned an English-just arrangement in the working environment after grievances were gotten around two specialists Garcia and Buitrago who were utilizing their second language to disturb and affront different workers. Issue:Spun Steak Co. authorized the strategy to advance racial congruity, improve specialist well-being, and improve item quality. (Bennett, p.357) Garcia and Buitrago documented accusations of EEOC in light of the fact that they accepted their employer had disregarded Title VII. They contend that denying them the capacity to communicate in Spanish denies them the right to social articulation. They likewise contended that the English just strategy divergently affects them since it denies them of an honor given by the employer to local English speakers who are allowed to communicate in the language they are most OK with. Applicable Law:Title VII is designed to prevent protected classes from working in abusive, hostile, discriminatory environments. Holding:The investigative court tracked down Spun Steak Co. not disregarding Title VII. 5
CASE ANALYSIS Reasoning:Title VII doesn’t protect the capacity of workers to communicate their cultural heritage in the work environment nor on the other hand does it take into account honors to be given to protected classes. Case Questions: 1. Do you agree with the contention that denying a group the right to speak their native tongue denies them the right to cultural expression?No, I disagree that denying a gathering to communicate in their native language denies them the right to social articulation (cultural expression). There are numerous alternate ways individuals can articulate their thoughts. 2. Do employees have a “right” to cultural expression in the workplace?I need to say no. There are a few companies where it wouldn’t be proper. 3. Do you agree with the court that an English-only rule is not abusive per se to those whose primary language is not English? Do you believe that it creates a “class system” of languages in the workplace and therefore inherently places one group’s language above another’s?I comprehend the reason why somebody could have an upset outlook on not having the option to talk their native language in the working environment. In any case, this is America and our essential language is English. On the off chance that an individual is going to live and work in America they ought to figure out how to talk enough English to really communicate. 6
CASE ANALYSIS Conclusion:Spun Steak Co. English-only strategy was not seen to cause a threatening workplace. It was really set up to establish a more useful workplace. 7

CASE ANALYSIS Chapter 11: Religious Discirmination Case:Chalmers v.Tulon Company of Richmond101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1996) pg. 608 Plaintiff:Chalmers Defendant:Tulon Company of Richmond Facts:Chalmers was a supervisor for the Tulon Company. As a fervent Christian, she accepted she ought to search for chances to impart the gospel to other people. Her supervisor, LaMantia was one individual she addressed consistently about tolerating God and offering to set things straight for things he had fouled up. In 1993 following quite a while of working with LaMantia, Chalmers sent him a letter telling him “one thing the Lord believes that you should do is get your life right with him.” (Bennett, p. 565) The letter goes on with “you are doing a few things in your day to day existence that God isn’t satisfied with and He believes you should stop.” (Bennett, p. 565) LaMantia’s better half opened the letter and irately she reached Chalmers thinking her significant other was engaging in extramarital relations. LaMantia later reached Craig A. Faber, Vice President of Administration at Tulon telling him about the letter and how it had caused him individual pain and overwhelmed his marriage. LaMantia informed Faber that he believed he could no longer be with Chalmers and suggested that Tulon the executives fire Chalmers’ business. While examining LaMantia’s consistency, Faber found that Chalmers had likewise sent a letter to another Tulon employee, Brenda Combs. Brushes’ letter expressed” One thing about God, He could do without when individuals commit infidelity. You understand what you did is off-base, so presently you really want to go to God and request absolution.” (p.565) Combs affirmed that the letter upset her, however it didn’t harm her functioning relationship with 8
CASE ANALYSIS Chalmers. In the wake of talking with different individuals from upper administration and presuming that the letters caused an adverse consequence on working connections, upset the working environment and improperly attacked employee privacy, Fabor fired Chalmers. Issue:Chalmers recorded a claim against Tulon guaranteeing they victimized her in view of her religion, disregarding Title VII. Applicable Law:In a prima facie religious accommodation claim, an offended party should lay out that they have a religious belief that struggles with a business necessity, illuminate the employer regarding this belief and demonstrate they were focused for inability to conform to the employment prerequisite. Holding:She guarantees her letter composing is a protected action and by regulation Tulon ought to have obliged with a lesser discipline than termination. Reasoning:Tulon guarded their explanations behind end were genuine and non-prejudicial. Case Questions: 1. Is there any way the employer could have avoided this situation? Explain.The employer could never have realized Chalmers planned to compose the letters, however they might have given her a lesser discipline in which Chalmers might have not documented discrimination charges. Maybe moving her to another office or position so she didn’t need to work with LaMantia and obviously requesting her to not send letters of a religious nature to different employees. 9

CASE ANALYSIS 2. If the employee had initially told the employer of her plan to write the letters and the employer had told her not to send them, would the outcome be any different if she had done so anyway?I would think so. On the off chance that she was asked not to send letters and afterward sent them in any case, she isn’t following business prerequisites. What’s more, really, as a decent Christian lady, wouldn’t resisting her boss be a wicked demonstration. 3. What would you have done if your employee’s wife called as Mrs. LaMantia did?I would tell her that her marriage is nothing I should be worrying about and she ought to take up the matter with her significant other. Conclusion:There was no proof of Chalmers informing Tulon of her religious beliefs and the requirement for her to compose letters. Moreover, the action of composing letters doesn’t conflict with an employment requirement. Consequently, the courts were supportive of Tulon. No strict discrimination was charged. 10

CASE ANALYSIS Chapter 6: Race and Color Discrimination Case:Chandler v. Fast Lane, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 1138 (E.D. Ark., W. Div. 1994) Page 346. Plaintiff:Chandler Defendant:Fast Lane, Inc., Facts:She claims that her employer’s discriminatory labor practices have harmed her, who is a white woman. Chandler, a former restaurant manager, has been prohibited from hiring or promoting people of color. To make matters even worse, her job became unbearable, and she had to quit. When an employer discriminates against an employee’s right to file charges, testify, assist, and engage in enforcement actions, it violates Title VII IN 42 U.S.C.A sec. 2000e-3(a). The respondent is the employer who claims that only African Americans were affected by the discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. There is no way that a white person can properly evaluate a Title VII lawsuit based on these rules. There’s no basis for bringing this issue before the court, according to the respondent, who says that the people who weren’t promoted were all African Americans. Issue:Do the requirements of Title VII sec 2000e-3(a) provide a prima facie foundation for Chandler’s claim? Applicable Law:A violation of Title VII’s § 2000e-3(a) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for making an allegation, testifying, helping, or participating in an investigation. The respondent’s restaurant refused to provide Chandler the chance to promote any 11

CASE ANALYSIS of the African American employees she managed. To bring a Title VII suit, the courts must first determine that Chandler’s employer’s conduct and instructions violated her rights under section 1981. Furthermore, Title VII says that an employer may not discriminate against any of its employeesbecause that employee has raised a concern about unlawful behavior in the workplace. Holding:Title VII 2000e-3 provided the legal foundation for Chandler’s victory (a). As a result of her participation in Title VII-protected opposition activities, she met all of the presumptive proof standards. As an outcome of her employer’s insistence, she was subjected to negative employment action. The second act was dependent on the first, therefore there was a by-the-by relationship between the two occurrences. Reasoning:The court’s ruling was based on a balance between the rights of employees and the rights of employers. The court reasoned that Congress made a straightforward but significant proclamation in establishing Title VII that sex, race, religion, and ethnicity are not pertinent to employee hiring, appraisal, or compensation. Employers may, however, take into consideration other qualifications and traits when making employment choices, and the legislation does not attempt to restrict this. As an alternative to the “for cause” rule, Title VII preserves the flexibility of employers by excluding certain causes for racial discrimination. According to the text of the legislation, the legislators intended to restrict workers from taking race into consideration while making employment choices. An employer cannot discriminate against any of their employees by refusing to hire or firing them, or by limiting, segregating, or otherwise classifying them in a way that would deny them employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect their 12

CASE ANALYSIS employment prospects, and this includes not paying them according to the same standards as other employees or job applicants, among other things. Discriminatory work practices enforced on Chandler by Fast Lane were unjustified and in violation of the company’s rights under the law. Because of this, the working conditions to which Chandler was exposed were discriminatory in accordance with Title VII § 2000e-3(a), as claimed by her. Case Questions: 1. What do you think of the employer’s argument that since its policies discriminated against African Americans, the white employee should not be able to bring a suit for discrimination? Explain.The employer’s thinking was very shallow, given that the white employee was a manager who was in charge of the other employees of mixed race. So if Chandler promotes the white only, there will be racial discrimination against the African- American employees, which could land the white employee in court cases due to discriminatory claims from the workers. This is because Title VII protects employees from employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex, color, and national origin. So, in this case, nation origin, color, and race were a significant base for the discrimination. Chandler may not be among those who fall under those categories as she was a white employee. The fact that, she was managing employees of mixed races made him risk being subjected to discriminatory claims from the African American employees under her charge. So, it was for Chandler to advocate for equality as failure to adhere to the provision of the law is putting her job and actions on the wrong side of the law. Also, since her actions weregoinghandin hand with her chances to maintain her position, it increased the discrimination on her side as fighting for equality means going against her employer’s wish, leading her to lose her job. So, the employer’s explanation was not good enough as Chandler’s 13

CASE ANALYSIS actions of ensuring their no is no discrimination in the workplace will result in her being treated unfairly by the employer, which amounts to being discriminated against. 2. Do you understand the court’s reasoning that the white employee was being discriminated against by not being able to hire and promote Black employees? Explain.Yes, I understand the court reasoning because the employer was retaliating against Chandler because of her legal disclosure of evidence information regarding the employer’s wrongdoing, so the employer’s actions toward Chandler were reflected on discrimination based on conduct for being a whistleblower. So the court was in order because Chandler could not promote the African American employees under her even if they were qualified to lead to discrimination on her side for failure to act fairly. This will lead to some burden falling on her part if an employee decides to take the matter to court. So for her, preventing that early in advance and removing the burden on her side was in order, so the court considered her action as legal and didn’t have to go through adverse employer’s treatment for telling the truth and standing by the law. This resulted in her employer discriminating against her because of her whistleblowing action, where discrimination judgment sets in. 3. What reason can you think of why the employer had the policy of not hiring or promoting African Americans? Do you think it makes good economic sense? (Consider all facets of economics, including the possibility of litigation over the policies.)The employer may be having stereotypes about their abilities and traits, whereby the employer may have opposing opinions on their capabilities. Even in the 21st century, people of color are perceived as not being competent enough to take up some responsibilities. Due to white supremacy, blacks are still seen as inferior who can not make good decisions or lead the whites, and the employer may have the same 14

CASE ANALYSIS perceptions. Also, the employer may have problems dealing with diversity and inclusion issues whereby it has been the company culture to take things that way, making changes in the policies difficult. Hiring or promoting African Americans may lead to problems like distracting the culture. The established culture has a way of how things are done in the company, so deviant means many things will have to change, and the employer might be avoiding those situations. In my opinion, the policy is not a good economic decision because; When you discriminate, it leads to the company having a bad image and reputation from the internal and external environment, which may lead to not hiring the most qualified employees and losing customer loyalty. This is because even some African American candidates are more talented than the whites, meaning that performance effectiveness and efficiency will be affected by not tapping the best employees, thus reducing productivity. Loss of customer loyalty and base comes indue to the bad company reputation that further reduces the company’s profitability. Also, the act leads to discrimination which is against the law. So the company may suffer law cases which increases the company expenses as they try to compensate those affected. The court cases also put some company operations at a standstill, affecting the returns on investment and increasing company losses, making diversification and growth difficult. Conclusion:Title VII sec 2000e-3(a) provided a basis for Chandler’s claim, and thus provided a strong starting point for the investigation. Several Title VII statutes applied in this instance. There were two of them: Sec. 2000e-3(a) and Sec. 2000e-2(a) (1). In order to apply the second legislation, Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1) has to be followed. Fast Lane violated section 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against its workers on the basis of their race, while the working circumstances it produced, for which Chandler departed, violated section 2000e-3 (a). 15

CASE ANALYSIS 16
CASE ANALYSIS Course Reflection This course increased my awareness of the diversity that exists in our society. I’ve learned that there is far more that connects us than divides us as a result of studying about the impact of various origins on daily life. This training improved my understanding of my fellow citizens and the specific issues they confront in our society. I’ve learned that there is much more that unites us as humans than divides us as a result of knowing about these many backgrounds. You will be a more productive member of society if you are more attentive to cultural, racial, and gender diversity. I’ve learned to appreciate diversity for what it is as a result of learning about the impact of these backgrounds on everyday life. If you pay greater attention to cultural, racial, and gender diversity, you will be a more productive member of society. As a result of learning about the impact of diverse backgrounds on everyday life, I’ve learnt to accept diversity for what it is. We were able to develop a better grasp of how people from various backgrounds and experiences may contribute value to our environment as a result of this training. We’ve come together as a group and learnt that, even if we were born in various countries and at different eras in history, we can all make a difference by embracing the talents and abilities of those who are different from us. The course was an excellent method for us to get to know one another, and it was fascinating to learn about various cultures and hobbies. The variety of backgrounds from which we came aided me greatly in my work path and in understanding people of varied backgrounds. In this training, it was a real delight to meet so many diverse people. I was able to connect with everyone because we all come from diverse backgrounds but have a passion for learning, positive attitudes, and honesty. 17

CASE ANALYSIS We studied about fusing our cultures and learning from people from other backgrounds in this course. What I learned was how to discover common ground and establish professional connections with my coworkers. This course has been really beneficial to me, not just in terms of information, but also in terms of networking and forming productive relationships with people from other backgrounds. In many ways, the course was beneficial to me. For starters, it allowed me to communicate with peers from all over the world, allowing me to understand more about them and their cultures. Second, the discussions at each meeting were quite beneficial in furthering my knowledge of the subject. Third, as a result of this course, I am more committed to applying what I have learned in future classes. The course was quite interesting and insightful. The majority of us are not natural English speakers, so we were able to improve our speaking skills by completing frequent assignments, which was excellent since it helped me become a better writer. Because I will have to write emails, attend networking events, present at conferences, and meet new people who can help me in my job, I see that this course will be useful in both my personal and professional lives. This course was an excellent opportunity for me to expand my knowledge and apply it to social concerns concerning schooling. Not all students are considered teachers, but those who can assist and assist their peers can help them learn more from this course or perhaps life itself. 18

CASE ANALYSIS References Bennett-Alexander, D. (2022). Employment Law for Business. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781260031805/ Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. P. (2022). Employment Law for Business. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Bennett-Alexander, D. D. (2021). Employment Law for Business 10e (10th Edition). McGrawHill Higher Education (US). https://devry.vitalsource.com/books/9781264126101 19
Uploaded by ProfRoseHamster36 on coursehero.com
Related law documents
Base Construction.docx
Base Construction
Conflict Resolution – CHALLENGE 1.10.pdf
Conflict Resolution – CHALLENGE 1.10
GBA 335_ Case Brief 2.docx
GBA 335 Case Brief 2
Business Law CH1.docx
Business Law CH1
Texas_Lease_Document.docx
TexasLeaseDocument
CJ101_CoferJessica_unit5assignment.docx
CJ101CoferJessicaunit5assignment
16 Adoption.pdf
16 Adoption
bus375 ch4-5.docx
bus375 ch4-5
6-1 Discussion Social Media Use.docx
6-1 Discussion Social Media Use
criminal psychology 1-2 journal.docx
criminal psychology 1-2 journal
HC 131_O1 Ch. 6 Study Questions.docx
HC 131O1 Ch. 6 Study Questions
SP23_Kausar_IPS_CH5_M.pdf