Janet Discrimination Case

809 Words2 Pages

1. Yes, Janet can prove prima facie evidence in this case by showing the following elements:
- Janet falls within a protected class being that she is an African American woman
- Janet applied for an employment opportunity for a new plant position
- The opportunity that she applied for was open and applications were being accepted
- Janet met the qualification criteria and was said by one of the hiring managers in confidence that she had the highest qualification for the job.
- Janet was denied of the plant foreman employment opportunity.
- The employer gave the position to a Hispanic male who is also part of a protected class.
The plant could easily reject these charges through their motives in the fact that they hired someone else in a protected …show more content…

Both were from different protected classes.
- The policy that was challenged was not justified as a business necessity. We know that Janet was the most qualified candidate based on the in confidence statement made by one of the hiring managers.
When Janet proves the elements of discrimination the employer (defendant) must come up with a legitimate reason for hiring Jose over Janet. From what I see in this case Janet would be able to prove disparate impact based on the plant promoting a man instead of a woman.
3. -Element One: The conduct is “Because of Sex.” Actionable sexual harassment requires that the complained of conduct must be because of the plaintiff’s gender, must be severe or pervasive, and must be unwelcome (Wiggins, 2017). Janet can indicate the fact that the plant had a past of sexual harassment based on the lewd jokes and touching of women …show more content…

The Supreme Court has held that sexually harassing conduct, if sufficiently severe or pervasive, can so alter an employee’s working conditions as to violate Title VII -- even absent actual or threatened economic injury (Wiggins, 2017). The fact that the plant had a history of this behavior and Janet brought it to the attention of her supervisor, and the supervisor blew it off with the “Boys will be boys” comment.
- Element Three: The Behavior is “Unwelcome.” The Supreme Court has stated that the gist “of any sexual harassment claim is that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome.” Though the “unwelcome” requirement is litigated most frequently in sexual harassment cases, given that in race, national origin, and religion cases, the conduct is usually assumed to be unwelcome (Wiggins, 2017). This is fitting with the plant history of inappropriate touching of female

Open Document