Business law
Page 1
Affirmative action refers to policies that were created by the government to assist in leveling the filed for people who have historically been disadvantaged because of aspects like color, race, sex, religion or national origin. The aim of these policies is to enhance social equality by preferentially treating people who have been disadvantaged socio-economically (Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
The affirmative action includes quota, point and preference systems. Preference systems application involves is to determine independent or skilled workers. A point system may be used where a person is given positions that others won’t take. Quota system ensures that no distinction can be made for various characteristics such as gender, race or age.
Reverse discrimination involves a situation where people who have historically been advantaged or belonging to a majority group face discrimination on the basis of their protected features like age , race and gender. This discrimination may arise out of affirmative action programs that aim at advancing the interests of the minorities(Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
Color and racial discrimination at work may be manifested during the hiring, disciplinary, remuneration and firing of employees. Employers may refuse to hire someone due to their race. They disciplinary actions and firing may be targeted to someone due to their race. In remuneration, employees may be paid less , not paid at all , not offered benefits , opportunities , promotions or be classified improperly due to their race(Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
In order to avoid liability from cases of color or racial discrimination, employers should take into account some important steps: they should familiarize themselves with anti-discrimination laws applicable; come up with an anti-discriminatory policy that is comprehensive and implement it; ensure that training programs related to anti-discriminatory laws are developed and implemented at the workplace; investigate and deal with any cases of discrimination that are reported(Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
In this sense, a discrimination case brought before a court under Tittle VII should have sufficient evidence that can support their allegations. As such, the evidence must be sufficient for to enable a jury or judge to conclude the occurrence of the discrimination. For a prima facie case involving National Origin Discrimination to be established by the plaintiff, he or he may use circumstantial or direct evidence(Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
The promulgation of 29 CFR §1606.7 that perceives any policy that requires employees to only use the English language as discriminatory on the basis of national origin was done by EEOC , but its application has been rejected by some federal courts (Bennett-Alexander, 2014) . Employers wishing to implement such policies must comply with EOCC, courts and laws passed by the states.
Page 2
The best strategy for preventing liability for cases of racial harassment at the workplace is to come up with an anti-discrimination policy and implementing it. The policy should allow the employees to report such cases and employers to perform investigation and provide the best disciplinary actions. It will allow the employees to clearly know the kind of behavior that may not be tolerated in a working environment (BUCKLEY, 2016).
In the case of Francisco’s compliant, the trainmaster should carry out the investigation of these allegations and look for evidence of the same. Where evidence of the same has been found, he should take an immediate action that is effective enough to stop the behavior buy other employees. In such a case, the guilty employees should be transferred and even fired where the transfer fails to yield results (BUCKLEY, 2016).
The situation at Astral Hospital Center may not be legally actionable in terms of racial harassment. This is because there may not be sufficient evidence that can support the allegation of harassment as provided under Title VII. The case may be dismissed before a jury or judge due to lack of enough evidence.
Page 3
Morales defence would be that the English only policies are not discriminatory since there is no proof that they have had negative effects on the plaintiffs. Morale can argue that the requirement for communication only through English arose from a legitimate necessity for the business and the working environment was not hostile as per the Title VII. Moreover, Civil Rights Acts of 1964 does not specifically forbid discrimination on native language basis (Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
In the stated situation, Franklin has been treated unequally in comparative to his colleagues who have a Chinese origin. The disciplinary action taken upon an employee for being late as stipulated in the policy of the firm have not been employed equally which forms a basis for alleging discrimination. The firm did not discipline or dismiss Jiang and Pan for being later often, but fired Franklin whose violation of the policy is dismal. The unequal treatment can serve as evidence of discriminating Franklin on the basis of his native language.
Nationality refers to a person membership which indicates their relationship with a given state and involves the concept of definition may be racial or ethnic. Citizenship on the other hand refers to the political status of an individual that indicates that one is recognized as the citizen of a given country. Citizenship is, hence , a legal status that show one is registered with government in the country.
Page 4
Gender discrimination in the workplace can be manifested in various ways that makes some genders to be treated better than others. It can occur in both formal and informal ways. Formally discrimination involves limits on how much a gender can access specific positions, opportunities for advancing and improved compensation while informal discrimination involves some unfavorable satiations one may encounter. Such situations include one gender being allowed part-time jobs, low payments, job security and fundamental public services (Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
Fetal Protection Policies are laws that are aimed at providing protection of a fetus at the work place with work environment conducive to a mother being determined by the worker and her doctor. Gender Plus Discrimination refers to discrimination arising from an employer’s classification of employees based in gender in addition to another attribute. In this case, not all people belonging to a certain class are subjected to discrimination. Lactation issues at the work place involve those that may arise because a mother who is an employee is breast feeding. Logistical concerns based in gender involve some gender issues arising from logistical issues other than those involving a significant and irrational financial burden (Bennett-Alexander, 2014).
Quid Pro Quo arises when a manager or employer of other such figures in power hints or offers to give something to a worker in exchange of a sexual demand. This also involves an employee not being reprimanded or dismissed by an employer or manager in exchange of any kind of sexual favor. The plaintiff must prove that he or she applied for a position or was a worker, the offender made some unwelcome advances to the claimant and benefits from the job were under condition that the plaintiff accepts the advances (Bennett-Alexander, 2014). The alleged behavior should have been harmful to the claimant and it was a significant aspect in such harm.
Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment involves conducts that enable sex based conducts that are unwelcome and pervasive enough to lead to abuse. In such a case, the victims must indicate enough ground to subjectively believe the behavior was offensive and abusive. In addition, a reasonable individual in the claimant’s position would hold an objective belief that the offender’s conduct was offensive or abusive.
Previously courts have been ruling that the language used in Title VII has no intention of providing protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Some courts have given plaintiffs some reliefs through classifying such harassment on the basis of sex but not sexual harassment (Whitman, 2012).
Harassment on the basis of same sex is partly covered in Title VII. For instance, a male supervisor refusing to promote another male employee on the basis of same sex would be same as discrimination on basis of sexual orientation. On the other hand, if the male worker is subjected to sexual advances by male supervisor, this would be sexual harassment.
References
Bennett-Alexander, D.(2014). Employment law for business . Chicago, IL: Irwin.
BUCKLEY, J. O. H. N. F. I. V. (2016). EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMPLIANCE GUIDE: 2017 edition. S.l.: WOLTERS KLUWER LAW & BUS.
Whitman, M. E. (2012). The Intersection of Religion and Sexual Orientation in the Workplace: Unequal Protections, Equal Employees. SMUL Rev., 65, 724.
