In this case Pamela Huber was a Wal-Mart Employee, working as a dry grocery order filler earning $13.00 per hour, including a $0.50 shift differential. While working she suffered a permanent injury to her right arm and hand, and was not able to fulfill her duties as an order filler. She later applied for a router position, an equivalent and vacant position but was rejected. The position was given to a more qualified candidate. Wal-Mart reassigned her to another facility and in a different position, a maintenance associate position making $6.20 per hour. She continues in that position and makes $7.97 per hour. Huber filed suit under ADA, arguing that the router position was a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgement, stating that they have a non-discriminatory policy of hiring the most qualified individual and that they were not required to assign Huber to the router position. The position was filled with a non-disable applicant with better qualifications. “The ADA was enacted in 1990 in order to meet what Congress termed a "compelling need" for a "clear and comprehensive national mandate" to prevent discrimination against the disabled. In furtherance of this end, the ADA prohibits discrimination against the disabled "in major areas of public life" including …show more content…
In this case someone will always believe that they were not treated fairly or that the law was not applied fairly. Also, the fact that Wal-Mart is a huge corporation with powerful legal advisors will always be mentioned as a contributing factor for the ruling. However, we also need to consider the other side of the story, the qualified and good candidates that have been ruled out because small companies are afraid to violate the ADA law or any of the details of its scope. It is a “slippery slope” and unfortunately someone will always consider themselves discriminated in some
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination based upon their disability (Bennett-Alexander, 2001). The protection extends to discrimination in a broad range of activities, including public services, public accommodations and employment. The ADA's ban against disability discrimination applies to both private and public employers in the United States.
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.
The case Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory did in fact uphold the jury's findings that employees who are on the older side had lost their jobs through a layoff plan. This discrimination was unintentional. However, the policy did have an impact that was deemed discriminatory and the firm could have reached its goals through a different method that would not effectively discriminate. The reason for the suit had to do with the fact that thirty of thirty-one people who were laid off were over the age of forty. There were 26 plaintiffs who did go to trial while some of the others settled with the company on their own. In the end, the jury awarded plaintiffs a total award of $4.2. The case was appealed and at the time, Knolls argued that the law really does not allow disparate impact claims, citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), where a claim involved disparate treatment and what was needed was proof of intentional discrimination. The Court claims that the Hazen Paper Court had not resolved the appropriate use of ADEA in terms of disparate impact. It was further stated that the decisions to come from other circuits do not necessarily overrule prior cases. The idea that disparate impact claims may not be allowed under ADEA is therefore rejected.
Maria DeSimone, 40 years old; wife and mother of two children of Palm Bay, Florida, was refused employment at the establishment in which she applied to. The circumstances surrounding the case were as follows. Ms. DeSimone possessed two years of previous restaurant experience, she applied for a position at Texas Roadhouse of Palm Bay to the manager of the facility. When she never heard back from the manager (who said he would get back to her); she happened to be discussing the situation with a friend; the friend told her that Texas Roadhouse had just hired her 19-year-old daughter to the position in which she had just applied for. Previously when she had not heard back from the manager about the position, he told her that “they weren’t hiring at this time” (Lee and Hymowitz,
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?
It reinstated the ability of workers, in all occupations, to seek to vindication against pay discrimination. In summary, individuals have 180 days to sue from the last discriminatory paycheck received. This law is designed to protect workers from employment discrimination practices(Mathis and Jackson, 2011). Additionally, it empowers individuals who believe they have been victims of worksite discrimination a greater amount of time to seek justice. Usually, the victim can only collect backpay for the last two
"The Americans With Disabilities Act is one of the most significant laws in American History. The preamble to the law states that it covers 43,000,000 Americans."(Frierson, p.3) Before the Americans With Disabilities Act(A.D.A.) was passed, employers were able to deny employment to a disabled worker, simply because he or she was disabled. With no other reason other than the persons physical disability were they turned away or released from a job. The Americans With Disabilities Act prevented this type of discrimination by establishing rules and regulations designed to protect persons with physical disabilities. With a workforce made up of 43,000,000 people, it is impossible to ignore the impact of these people. The Americans With Disabilities Act not only opened the door for millions of Americans to get back into the workplace, it is paving the road for new facilities in the workplace, new training programs and creating jobs designed for a disabled society.
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.
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is one of the most significant laws in American History. Before the ADA was passed, employers were able to deny employment to a disabled worker, simply because he or she was disabled. With no other reason other than the person's physical disability, they were turned away or released from a job. The ADA gives civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. The act guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications. The ADA not only opened the door for millions of Americans to get back into the workplace, it paved the road for new facilities in the workplace, new training programs, and created jobs designed for a disabled society (Frierson, 1990). This paper will discuss disabilities covered by the ADA, reasonable accommodations employers must take to accommodate individuals with disabilities, and the actions employers can take when considering applicants who have disabilities.
The first Disability Act went into effect in 1973 and it helped to end discrimination of those that have a disability. The Act was modeled based on laws that previously helped to end discrimination based on race, ethnic origin and sex. . The Disability rights act helped to give those with disabilities a chance to live independently and not have to depend on others to take care of them like in the past. Those with disabilities could no longer be turned down for employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services.
If everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom that is set forth in the Declaration, disabled people should not be robbed of their rights. However, they are still devalued from conducting common tasks which puts them at the bottom of the priority list as an employee and even so as a friend. In search to solve this problem, according to “The Disabled” by Bender, D. on July 26, 1990, President G...
O'Brien, Ruth. "Two Horns of a Dilemma: The Americans With Disabilities Act." Crippled justice: the history of modern disability policy in the workplace. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. 162-205. Print.
In the legal issue titled Employment discrimination, it describes a situation where abc corporation decides to respond to what it sees as a moral obligation to correct for past discrimination by adjusting pay differences among its employee. This raises a lot of ethical conflict with abc’s employees and its shareholders for numerous reasons. Employees were treated unfair, Abc company can no longer be trusted as a good work ethic company, they have a bad reputation for discrimination and there might be a likelihood the company will go out of business due to its actions.
Discrimination occurs when an employee suffers from unfavorable or unfair treatment due to their race, religion, national origin, disabled or veteran status, or other legally protected characteristics. Employees who have suffered reprisals for opposing workplace discrimination or for reporting violations to the authorities are also considered to be discriminated against. Federal law prohibits discrimination in work-related areas, such as recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. (employeeissues.com, 2006)