Case Of Randy Nothern And Santa Fe Railwayco V.

In the cases mentioned in question one it briefly reflects how each case set a precedent for areas of retaliation and sexual harassment. The following narrative for each case provides more details on how these cases set a precedent for areas of retaliation and sexual harassment.

Burlington Nothern and Santa Fe Railwayco V. White,126 S.Ct. 2405 (2006)

The first case of Burlington Nothern and Santa Fe Railway V. White. Sheila White was a female employee working with the Burlington railway company as a forklift operator. White worked under the close supervision of her immediate supervisor Joiner who consistently claimed that women were not qualified to carry out the duties she was undertaking. The supervisor reaffirmed these statements even

in the midst of the white male workmates a situation that did not please the female employee. He reported the sexual discriminatory case to the company top management, and her supervisor was suspended from his duties for ten days.

Later after reporting the case White received a notice that her job as a folk lifter has been reassigned another male member and that she has been relocated from her current job station to more strenuous manual difficult tasks. The employee filed a new lawsuit with EEOC citing retaliation actions against her for reporting sexual discrimination acts g against her immediate supervisor. She also filed a second case alleging that her employer has fixed surveillance camera something that was against her privacy rights. The company later her for alleged subordination. White filed the third case against her employer claiming that her suspension and demotion misfortunes emanated from her resolve to protest against sexual discrimination practices. The sixth circuit court as well as the Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff remedies and affirmed that the company’s

practices amounted to retaliatory actions against protected employee activities. According to Janove (2006), the aftermath of the case regarding Burlington Nothern and Santa Fe Railway V. White, will require HR to review its policies, modify its training and establish a mechanism for reviewing all pertinent management decisions for any future retaliatory effect.
CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, 128 s. Ct. 1951 (2008)
The second case CBOCS West Inc.

v. Humphries. According to (“CBOCS West, Inc…”, n.d. ), the case of demonstrated Humphrey, an African American manager at Cracker Barrel Company, sued his company for alleged discriminatory by his race. The plaintiff had been fired by the employer and complained that he was fired as a retaliatory activity for his opposition to inhumane treatment of other African American workmates. The court of appeal and Supreme Court affirmed Humphrey’s case and noted that title seven protects the employees against retaliatory practices from their employers for protected activities including the Humphreys actions. According to Zimmer (2009), this case is significant as a reminder that employment decisions should be made by avoiding criteria that could easily be perceived as subjective. Having this case expose an area where managers fail to have non-subjective decision making procedures that could expose the organization to discrimination suits that could have possibly be prevented.

Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co 824f sup 847

(1993)
The third case of Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co this was the first sexual harassment case to be brought before a federal law court. The plaintiff a female worker had worked for a taconite company sued the employer for alleged discrimination to women against the title seven provisions. He accused the company for sexual harassment and women discrimination acts. The plaintiff had indicated in her case that Eveleth mines has engaged in discriminatory activities in hiring, compensation, promotion training, discipline and job assignment on the basis of gender. The plaintiff also sued the company against hostile working conditions for women in the company. On the other hand, the company defended the allegations arguing that there was no element of sexual discrimination in the company. The court finally settled the case through and awarded 3.5 million dollars to the plaintiff as a remedy.