Racial Discrimination and Law

Business and Employment Law

Business Law and Labor & Employment Law

Employees are classified in different categories. Federal and state law does not explicitly define the categories, but employers generally categorize employees on the basis of duties performed, number of hours worked, and duration of job. Accordingly, employees fall in three main groups: permanent (full-time), part time, and temporary employees (PayScale, 2009). A permanent employee is an employee who works a typical work week for an indefinite duration, while a part-time employee works fewer hours than the typical work week. Temporary employees may work full-time or part-time, though for a definite period of time. Though federal law does not define the above categories, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) classifies employees as either non-exempt or exempt employees (Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM], 2014). The former denotes employees whose work is covered by FLSA and who are subject to overtime and minimum wage regulations, while the latter denotes employees whose work is not subject to FLSA provisions on overtime and minimum wage.

Classifying employees correctly is crucial for a number of reasons. First, classification helps in determining employees' eligibility for benefits, especially non-statutory benefits. For instance, part-time employees are often excluded from health insurance coverage. Additionally, correct classification of employees ensures employees have a clear understanding of their employment status, especially with respect to their conditions of work (SHRM, 2014).

Question 2

Various federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act 1964, FLSA 1963, the Equal Pay Act 1963, and the Equality Act 2015, prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of racial background, sex, gender, pregnancy, national origin, religion, national origin, bankruptcy, citizenship, age, disability, and military service. In essence, it is unlawful for employers to rely on these characteristics in making employment decisions such as hiring, firing, transfer, promotion, compensation, and fringe benefits (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2009).

Lee and Larry can sue Lopez, Inc. for race-based employment discrimination under federal law. The company has a historically employed Hispanics only and even hired Hispanics for the recent vacancies of a sales person and a computer programmer. In other words, the company evidently favors individuals from a certain race (Latin American) over others. Rather than considering skills and qualifications, the company apparently prioritizes racial background, an indication of racially-motivated workplace discrimination.

It is, however, important to note that proving racial discrimination against an employer can be quite difficult as in most cases there may be no direct evidence such as memos instructing managers to hire candidates from a specific race. Nonetheless, this does not necessarily mean that Larry and Lee cannot claim for workplace racial discrimination. First, given the company's history of recruitment and the recruitment of the sales person and the programmer, it is quite apparent that they were denied employment because they are not Hispanics. This evidence notwithstanding, Larry and Lee would have to convince the court that they were qualified for or capable of performing the job in question and that the company's action amounts to racial discrimination. These conditions constitute what is known a "prima facie case."

Assignment Two

Memo

Company Name: Gold & Gold

To: Bill Tate, Managing Partner

Date: 23rd May, 2017

Subject: George Gett's Case

Agency law defines the relationship between the principal, the agent, and a third party. An agent is a person or an entity authorized by the principal to act on their behalf. In other words, the agent can enter into a contractual agreement with a third party on behalf of the principal. Agency is created only when the agent is expressly or implicitly authorized by the agent to negotiate or act on behalf of the principal (Bennett, 2014). As per George Gett, Nick Wade was not authorized to be Gett's agent at the time the contract for the rare coin was made. This means that no agency was created when the agreement between Wade and Estelle Brown was created. Therefore, Brown cannot collect any money from Gett for the rare coin.