More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender and racial discrimination in the workplace
Racial discrimination in the workplace in the us
Gender and racial discrimination in the workplace
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. Title and Citation Vance v. Ball State Univ. 570 U.S. ___ (2013) 2. Facts of the Case Maetta Vance was picked on by some coworkers, and eventually, one of them got a position acting like a supervisor, while she was working for the Ball State University Banquet and Catering Division of University Dining. These coworkers were Saundra Davis and Connie McVicker. Vance and one of her co-workers, Saundra Davis, had some oral argument that ended with Davis’s slapping Vance in the head (Cornell University Law). Vance’s matter with Connie McVicker was that “Vance was told that co-worker Connie McVicker had bragged about McVicker’s family ties to the Ku Klux Klan and referred to Vance using a racial slur” (Cornell University Law). Davis complained the Ball State University about both co-workers. But, the Ball State University did not solve the problems, and did not fire Davis and/or McVicker that the university gave a written warning to McVicker and formally warned Davis, too (Cornell University Law). Then, Vance sued the Ball State University at the district court, but The district court did not satisfy Vance’s desires about the court outcomes that the university was not able to “be liable for Davis’s actions as a supervisor under Title VII because Davis did not have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or disciple Vance” (Cornell University Law). 3. Issues …show more content…
Issues Must an employee have the power to tangibly affect the employment status of the victim in order to be considered a supervisor for purposes of employer liability for racial harassment in the workplace? 4. Decisions
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
The case of Tennessee vs Reeves talks about two youngsters named Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman who were students at the West Carrol Middle School who were planning to kill their teacher, Janice Geiger (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). They had planned to poison the teacher with rat poison by putting it in the teacher’s drink (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). There were other students who had found out, and the plot had been reported to the teacher and principal of the school (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). The students were convicted of attempt to commit secondary degree murder based on the fact that the poison was brought to the school and if it wasn’t because the plot to killed Miss. Geiger was interrupted the crime would have taken place.
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
FACTS: Respondent, Davis, a licensed LPN for over ten years who also lives with hearing loss applied for admissions to Southeastern Community College. The Petitioner, requested Davis see an audiologist before accepting her to the RN program. The audiologist concluded that Davis required lip-read in order to fully understand audible communication. The school subsequently denied Davis entry, assuming her hearing loss would affect her ability to effective care for patients safely.
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.
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the single most important piece of legislation that has helped to shape and define employment law rights in this country (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001)". Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, gender, disability, religion and national origin. However, it was racial discrimination that was the moving force of the law that created a whirlwind of a variety of discriminations to be amended into Title VII. Title VII was a striving section of legislation, an effort which had never been tried which made the passage of the law an extremely uneasy task. This paper will discuss the evolution of Title VII as well as the impact Title VII has had in the workforce.
Kansas v. Hendricks was somewhat of a landmark case when it relates to individuals receiving treatment for a disorder after they have severed their respected prison sentence. Leroy Hendricks was nearing the end of his ten year prison sentence. He was convicted of violating or taking “indecent liberties” with two thirteen year old boys. Hendricks had an extensive history when it came to molesting children. He testified in court that he was diagnosed by a physician for suffering from pedophilia. He told the physician that he still has sexual desires for children and will not be able to control them once he is “stressed out”. It was then determined by a jury that Hendricks should be labeled as a violent sexual predator. Kansas authorities wanted
Skinner v state of oklahoma The first case of many cases dealing with the topic of the reproductive system , the rights of an individual to have the rights to a choice in reproduction . Though Roe v Wade is the most commonly known of the Supreme Court cases regarding reproductive rights it was not the first Supreme Court case regarding this topic. Reproductive rights was in fact not Roe v. Wade , but rather this case had no element that discussed the principle of abortion or contraceptive use.Skinner V, State of oklahoma Rather this case dealt with the topic of a discipline/ punishment based forced sterilization,( the removal of the reproductive capabilities
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
The court case that I chose as the precedent for this scenario is Brandenburg v. Ohio. In this court case, a leader from the Ku Klux Klan made a speech at a Klan rally in Ohio and was charged with terrorism, sabotage, and violence.This conviction violates Brandenburgs right to free speech. In the scenario and the court case both Ku Klux Klan members were convicted of a crime that violated the state law which does not allow the advocacy of crime, sabotage, violence and unlawful methods of terrorism. Also in the scenario John Doe is fined $1500 and sentances to 5 years in prison. Both cases are very similar down to the point that they both deal with the Ku Klux Klan. After reading the court case I believe that the punishments given to John Doe
Workplace harassment is unwelcome actions that are based on a person’s race, religion, color, and sex, and gender, country of origin, age, ethnicity or disability. The targets of the harassment are people who are usually perceived as “weaker” or “inferior” by the person who is harassing them. Companies and employers can also be guilty of workplace harassment if they utilize discriminatory practices against persons based on ethnicity, country of origin, religion, race, color, age, disability, or sex. These discriminatory practices have been illegal since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Civil Rights Act of 1964), and have been amended to be more inclusive of other people who experience discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (The Civil Rights Act of 1991), and most recently, President Obama’s signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Stolberg, 2009).