Different states have their own forms of state agencies
Different states have their own forms of state agencies which help in the administration of laws just like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does in cases of Federal Law. Ivy League University is Located in New Jersey and as such, it is not a must for Morgan to file his case with the agency. The New Jersey State Law does not force one to file a case with the agency. He or she can file a case with the state court without involving an agency. If needed, one can seek services from the New Jersey Civil Rights Commission. In that regard, Morgan has validly placed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission without the need for involving an agency or a state, (Alonso, et al, 2017, 17).
In this particular scenario, Morgan is filing a complaint of racial and sexual discrimination against the university. The denial of tenure mainly began in February 2014. According to the case of Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980), one is said to have been treated unfairly and judged against by the board of trustees as soon as the terminal contract notification is served. In this case, the respondent clearly indicated that limitations began on 26th June 1974. As such, this marks the beginning of a terminal contract. In Morgan’s case, the act of being notified that his contract runs for one year marks the day in which the discrimination occurs, (Riccucci, 2018, 46).
Title V11 stipulates that employers should not indulge in unlawful employment practices by failing or refusing to hire individuals or discriminate anyone based in their terms of compensation, conditions, employment privileges, religion, race, sex or nation of origin, (Section 703). In addition to this section, an employer should not segregate or limit employees during the employment exercise leading to deprivation of an employment opportunity because of race, religion or even sex, (Connolly et al., 2018, 78). In this regard, it is essential for an employer to prove that he or she follows the right employment laws and procedures by employing individuals without any form of segregation or discrimination. In the case of Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978), the refusal to hire an applicant should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the respondent was able to show that his workforce was racially and sexually balanced hence no instances of discrimination. The hiring process was based on pure experience. As such, the company has been able to meet its burden as needed by Title V11.
Denial of tenure and discrimination in Morgan’s case
The three African Americans have to also prove that they were discriminated against by the prospective employer, (EEOC, 2017, 13). Employees have to prove that the employers were not able to hire them based on their race, sexual difference, religion or nationality. In this case, the three individuals failed to provide evidence that they were denied employment as a result of discrimination.
In this particular scenario, Cloutier is suing Costo corp. for discrimination against religion. It is her belief that she is entitled to wear facial rings and earrings in accordance with her religion- Church of Body Modification, (Iganski & Mason, 2018, 25). As such, the element of suing for discrimination against age should not suffice in the case. To start with, the choice of terminating her employment is solely based on the Company’s dress code. Also, for age discrimination to become a ground to sue, one has to establish that the employer did it intentionally. As such, she cannot establish a prima-facie case on the basis of age discrimination.
Her quest to sue for discrimination against religion may not be successful. In the first instance, she signed a contract with the company which also stipulated a strict dress code which did not allow for facial piercings. On the other hand, the company allowed her to work as a cashier after arriving at an amicable point after new regulations concerning dress codes were imposed, (Lewis, 2018, 53). The most important aspect of this case is her inclination towards a religious background which allows facial piercings. As such, here employer discriminated against her religion as per the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules and regulations. It is also worth noting that Costo was lenient enough to allow her to wear her piercings despite the company’s dress code not allowing it. This action could have been seen as discriminatory against other employees hence the need for uniformity in terms of a dress code.
In this scenario, Elizabeth Westman has made a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that her employer terminated her unfairly, replacing her with a man who was less qualified. On the other hand, Valley technologies what she claims to be dismissed because Elizabeth filed the case when the time limit had lapsed? According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, one should file a claim or a complaint within 180 days from the day in which the act of dismissal happened. In a situation where discrimination was based on age, an agency or state can allow a period of 300 days, (Schultz, 2018, 126). It is thus essential to pursue the discrimination charges with other institutions like a court of law especially when internal agreements cannot be pursued. Here, Elizabeth filed a case with the body a year after being terminated from work. This means that she has filed the claim beyond the stipulated 180 days. As such, her complaint was not properly filed.
Title V11 stipulations
Age discrimination is one of the most common claims that is always raised, (Naff, 2018, 13). In many cases, the age of forty is seen to be one of the most important element when determining discrimination. This is most especially aided by the Employment Act as well as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It is essential for one to prove that he or she was discriminated against on the basis of age. In most cases, one can base the claims of being discriminated against by the nature of intentional age discrimination where an employer shows intentional motive of terminating one’s contract in favor of a different person. This at a time may be indirect hence the need for tangible evidence.
In a nutshell, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is tasked with determining employment disputes that are brought before it, (Munoz, 2018, 54). Individuals who are harassed at work and denied equal opportunity in terms of racial segregation, religious or national differences have an opportunity of seeking redress before this body. Also, the institution sets procedures which have to be followed by employees, employers as well as prospective employees. This also differs from state to state especially with the existence of agents and local government agencies which are alternatives too. In most cases, policies have to be followed so that one’s application can be successful. For instance, the 180 day period has to be adhered to when filing a complaint this also applies to the nature of the claim and how to set up the case. Most importantly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not favor any party involved, (Lewis, 2018, 76). It acts as a mediator and tries to make parties solve their problems amicably. In a situation where solutions are not found, the courts of law can be the next point where a ruling is given depending on how an applicant or respondent lodges his or her claim and defense respectively.
References:
Alonso, P., Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2017). Structured behavioural interview as a legal guarantee for ensuring equal employment opportunities for women: A meta-analysis. The European journal of psychology applied to legal context, 9(1), 15-23.
Riccucci, N. (2018). Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces: Essentials Of Public Policy And Administration Series. Routledge. pp. 47-80
Connolly Jr, W. B., Connolly, M. J., & Feinstein, J. (2018). A practical guide to equal employment opportunity. Law Journal Press (Page 78)
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2017). Questions and Answers: Notice of Proposed Changes to the EEO-1 to Collect Pay Data from Certain Employers. Pp 12-25
Iganski, P., & Mason, D. (2018). Ethnicity, equality of opportunity and the British National Health Service. Routledge. Pp 22-67
Lewis, G. B. (2018). Progress toward racial and sexual equality in the federal civil service? In Diversity and Affirmative Action in Public Service (pp. 51-63). Routledge.
Schultz, V. (2018). Telling Stories about Women and Work: Judicial Interpretations of Sex Segregation in the Workplace in Title VII Cases Raising the Lack of Interest Argument [1990]. In Feminist legal theory (pp. 124-155). Routledge.
Naff, K. C. (2018). To look like America: Dismantling barriers for women and minorities in government. Routledge. 13
Munoz, P., & Micco, A. (2018). The Impact of Extended Employment Protection Laws on the Demand for Temporary Agency Workers. 54
Lewis, G. B. (2018). Equal employment opportunity and the early career in federal employment. In Diversity and Affirmative Action in Public Service (pp. 75-91). Routledge.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
