H.R. Dilemmas 1. Waste Disposal, Inc. is a private sanitation company with 135 e
ID: 386910 • Letter: H
Question
H.R. Dilemmas
1. Waste Disposal, Inc. is a private sanitation company with 135 employees, all of whom are male with the exception of 3 administrative assistants. Sandy Jones applies for an opening for a sanitation worker. She is summarily refused. In a disparate impact case, would she be entitled to punitive damages?
2. In the Southwest, Red Jensen has a store named Western Wear. He employs 22 people, all white males. Raj Patel and his wife relocated to the area when Patel’s wife received a research position at Southwest University. Patel applied for employment at Western Wear. Jensen refuses, claiming his clientele would not accept Patel as a salesperson. Should Patel claim disparate treatment or disparate impact?
3. Mustapha Khalid, who is Muslim, applies to the Alphabet Cereal Corporation for work. He is denied employment. Khalid is qualified for the position. He possesses excellent references, having worked for Galaxy Cereals for a number of years. He files a lawsuit alleging religious and national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He has a prima facie case. Alphabet alleges that Khalid’s membership in a right-wing fundamentalist group several years ago is a legitimate reason for not hiring him. Is that justifiable?
Explanation / Answer
Answer to the first question:
Disparate impact in United States Labor Law refers to the practices particularly in employment which adversely affect the protected classes as defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even if the rules applied by the employers are neutral in nature. The protected classes include people which are protected based on their race, religion, color, ethnicity, sex, disability, etc. In the given case, the company Waste Disposal Inc. is having a policy of employing only male sanitation workers and for the administrative assistants, there is no such barrier. Sandy Jones applied for sanitation worker, but she was refused the job due to her sex. In such scenario, the company may prove that due to the nature of job, they only wanted male persons as the females, due to their softer sex, may not be able to cope up with their job. Further, she could have applied for the administrative post in the company, as it was open to all. In this case, she is unlikely to get the punitive damages.
Answer to the second question:
In this case, Raj Patel was refused emloyment in the Western Wear on a rubbish argument that their clientele may not accept him as a salesperson. It is a clear case of disparate treatment as it could be seen here that the owner Red Jenson had employed only white males. It is clear case of discrimination where the owner was giving employment based on the color of the employees and not according to their skills and experience. How could he say that his clientele were not going to accept Raj Patel as a salesperson? It is just his imagination and unjust treatment and discrimination towards people with color other than white. So, Raj Patel is a victim of disparate treatment and not disparate impact.
Answer to the third question:
May be Mustapha Khalid, who is a Muslim, was a member of a right-wing fundamentalist group several years ago at some time in his life, but for the past years, he was well employed with Galaxy Cereals with good appraisals and excellent references and also he is equally qualified for the position for which he applied for the job with Alphabet Cereal Corporation. He might had left the radical organization as he thought that it will do no good to him and his family and got stable job with the company. From his records, it is noticed that he had left behind all his past association with the said group and moved ahead in his life. So, the allegation of Alphabet and its denial of employment to Mustapha Khalid on the basis of his past, is really not encouraging and justifiable. His lawsuit against the company in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 holds good in this case as he has every right for employment and earning and the same cannot be taken away from him.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.