In Aquino v. Honda of America Inc., 158 Fed. Appx 667 (6th Cir. 2005), Michael Aquino is a Chinese-Filipino Honda assembly line worker who was suspend multiple times for disciplinary violations. Aquino was suspended in 2001. After his suspension was over, he was as to the engine installation station. During Aquino’s employment in the engine installation station, Honda experienced numerous cases of vandalism and tampering. After an investigation, Honda concluded the Aquino was the only employee with access to the tooled involved in the vandalism. Aquino was subsequently arrested. However, due to insufficient evidence charges were eventually dropped. Regardless of the lack of criminal charges, Honda terminated Aquino from employment based …show more content…
up information gathered in the initial investigation. After his termination, Aquino filled suit against Honda claiming he was terminated because he was the only nonwhite employee in the engine installation station. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 offered sweeping antidiscrimination protection for employees.
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, or religion. Race, color, national origin, gender, and religion are known as protected classes. The Supreme Court later established “several theories of discrimination that plaintiffs may purses based on the type of discrimination alleged.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015) The three most common theories are disparate treatment, mixed motives, and disparate impact. Aquino v. Honda is an example of disparate treatment as Aquino believe his was terminated, thus discriminated against, because of his race. Disparate Treatment is defined as “overt and intentional discrimination.” (Melvin & Katz, 2015)The burden of proof was on Honda to prove it had legitimate reason to terminate Aquino. The court ruled that Honda had met the burden of proof; the firing was not discriminatory as the accusations were not baseless nor did they amount to pretext. When the burned shifted back to Aquino to prove his firing was discriminatory in nature, he could not provide any …show more content…
pretext. Aquino v.
Honda of America Inc., does have several relevant social and ethical, and biblical issues. An acquisition of racism can have far reaching effects on a business. An article published by Chron says “It can affect the morale of the entire team and have dire implications for management, particularly if management acted before finding out all of the facts associated with the situation.” (Belcher, n.d.) Discrimination in the workplace creates a hostile work environment. Employees will not be productive. In the long run, the business is harmed. Jesus commands us to love one another as He loves us. John 13:34 says “ A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.” Jesus is very clear on His expectation regarding love. Additionally, God does not show partiality or favoritism. Romans 2:12 says “For God shows no partiality.” and James 2:9 says “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” The workplace is not a place for favoritism or
partiality. Why did Aquino have the burden of proving that Honda’s reason for discharging him was a pretext? Didn’t he already prove a prima facie case? Michael Aquino had the burden of providing the reasons for his discharge were pretext because this employer proved legitimate, nondiscretionary reasons for his termination. When Honda provided this, the burden shifted back to Aqunio to show that the reason for his termination was not the actual reason for the termination. Aquino did prove a prima facie case. “ Aquino asserts, apparently without contradiction, that (1) he is a minority, being of Filipino and Chinese ancestry, (2) Honda terminated his employment, and (3) he was technically qualified for his position. The evidence supports a reasonable inference that Aquino has established the first three elements of the McDonnell Douglas framework’s prima facie test for summary judgment purposes.” (Aquino v. Honda of America Inc., 2005) Aquino also met the fourth, and final, element required to prove a prima facie case. He was replaced with someone outside his protected class. The second stage of the McDonnell Douglas standard required that the burden of proof shirt to the employer once the plaintiff makes a prima facie case. Considering the criminal charges against him were dropped, what would Aqunio need to have shown in order to meet his burden that Honda’s reason for dismissing him were pretextual? To prove that Honda’s reason for terminating his employment were pertextual, Michael Aquino could provide Honda’s reasoning for his termination was fabricated. Aquino could provide statements form his coworkers about his character and work ethic. Aquino could provide documentation proving other cases of discrimination in his work area. He could provide attendance records showing his absence when the vandalism occurred. There are many ways Aqunio could attempt to prove his pretextual dismissal but the burden is on him to do so.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
In the case of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company the Supreme Court of the United States found the Duke Power Company liable for violating the civil rights of thirteen African American employees of Duke Power Company. This was a result of the Duke Power Company intradepartmental transfer policy requirements of a high school education and achieving a minimum scores on two aptitude tests. The intrade direct violation because the power company could not link the intradepartmental transfer policy to benefit or predict the how the employee will lead and serve Duke Power Company. Disparate treatment is the matter of proof. The plaintiff alleging direct, intentional discrimination must first be able to establish a prima facie case and second, he or she is able to establish that the employer was acting on the basis of a discriminatory motive (Caruth).The class action suit, on the behalf of the thirteen African American employees, resulted in a unanimous ruling in favor of Griggs, Duke Power Company.
...ny should have the dignity to step up automatically and reach out to individuals like Josh. I believe that the Benedictine values are critical components for a company to survive in this world and also to help others to survive. I think Chimerix could have handled the situation much better then it initially did. Chimerix should not take the media’s nationwide attention to change a company’s decision; they should automatically know the right thing to do. Chimerix faced many complications in adhering to the Christian values for its company, but later on they realized they needed to make changes to coincide with the Benedictine principles. In the end, management and leaders of a company should act in accordance with the statute that all individuals are God’s people and their work is a symbol of how they value God in their pursuit to follow in the Benedictine way.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (n.d.). The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved November 20, 2014, from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact, the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her.
For a disparate treatment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII, the plaintiff must establish prima facie. Prima facie is the initial burden of proof the plaintiff must meet to have standing. Prima facie is made up many considerations that mainly address if an employer treats an employee unfairly for being a member of a protected class. The protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." ():-. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm on Mar 17, 2014
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has grown over the past few decades to ensure that employees, as well as employers, are protected against all employment discrimination. It is extremely important that both employers and employees know and understand what the law means and how to handle such acts of discrimination. As more amendments are passed into law, employers need to have clear and concise policies to help fight against discrimination.
In the United States, racial discrimination has a lengthy history, dating back to the biblical period. Racial discrimination is a term used to characterize disruptive or discriminatory behaviors afflicted on a person because of his or her ethnic background. In other words, every t...
"United States v. Wong Kim Ark." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. .
Disparate treatment is a form of discrimination that is forbidden by laws in which all employers must comply, including fire and emergency services. Disparate treatment in the workplace is applicable to many functions of the workplace including, discipline, promotions, hiring, firing, benefits, layoffs, and testing (Varone, 2012). The claim of disparate treatment arises when a person or group, “is treated differently because of a prohibited classification” (Varone, 2012, p. 439). In the 2010 case, Lewis v. City of Chicago, six plaintiffs accused the city of disparate treatment following testing for open positions within the Chicago Fire Department (Lewis v. City of Chicago, 2010). The case is based on the argument that the Chicago Fire Department firefighter candidate testing, which was conducted in 1995, followed an unfair process of grouping eligible candidates, therefore discriminating against candidates of African-American decent. The case was heard by the Seventh District Court of Appeals and ultimately appeared before the United States Supreme Court, where Justice Scalia delivered the final verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
Introduction- Discrimination affects people all over the world. People of all ethnicities and from all different walks of life are influenced in some way by workplace discrimination. "Discrimination" means unequal treatment. One of the most common elements discriminated against is a persons ethnicity, or their race. This is called Racial Discrimination. While there are many federal laws concerning discrimination, most states have enacted laws that prohibit it. These laws may have different remedies than the federal laws and may, in certain circumstances be more favorable than the federal laws.
Toyota issues in automotive industry resulted from a lack of moral and ethical obligations to loyal customers. In fact, people encounter ethics at one time or another. A business expectation is to act in manner upholding society values. According to authors Trevino and Nelson, (2004) states, “a set of moral principals or values, or the principals, norm, and standards of conduct governing a group or individual.” On the other hand, three ethical criteria determined in this discussion like obligation, moral ideas, and consequences which this article highlights an ethical dilemma with automobiles makers.
In June 2012, a social media defamation case was brought to trial, the Clay Corporation v. Colter. In Massachusetts, Clay Nissan fires an employee and the emplo...
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.