Education-Administration Education Discrimination to Teachers Teacher Discrimination

Education-Administration

Education Discrimination to Teachers

Teacher Discrimination Cases

Educational instructors, especially the teachers provide the necessitated skills and knowledge to students, thereby equipping them with essential life skills. The teachers are in most cases employed by union organizations, but in some state and cities, they are directly employed from the school boards. In the latter situation, teacher-related issues are handled by the respective school's board committees. Despite the employer's position or rank, individual or board, the teachers' constitutional rights need to be obeyed and implemented accordingly. However, laws pertaining discrimination are increasingly filed in the courts, and has seen several teachers win. The employer's are prohibited by the federal and state law from conducting decision-making processes that affect teachers from a discriminatory criterion. Some decisions are made in consideration of a teacher's race, age, ethnic origin, religion, physicality, gender and even color. Decisions of hiring, paying and promotion to the teachers are majorly affected by the effectiveness of this law. Several cases and related claims of discrimination are usually handled and filed in association with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or directly to federal or state courts. Below are two cases of promotion denial that were file and petitioned in the courts, and their legitimacy and authenticity in filing and getting responsive judgment from their proceedings.

Case 1

Promotion denial from age discrimination

In 2007 and 2008, Thomasville City Schools denied Miss Arlene Lent promotion to the position of assistant principal due to age discrimination. The incident led to the filing of Arlene Lent vs. Thomasville City Schools case by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). By the time of promotion application, Arlene Lent was 54 years. Having being a teacher for quite some time, she had 16 years of teaching experience and met the minimum qualifications such as possessing the North Carolina Principal's License However, in the two applications that she applied for, she was denied the opportunity in favor of two younger candidates.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) agency found the legitimacy of filing the case, with evidential support. The applicant of the case required to provide credentials to support their quest for the position. Upon gathering investigation, the two younger candidates did not possess the license or the minimal requirements statutory to the position. This certainly provided more ground for Miss Arlene to press on the charges of discrimination against the school. In addition, the claim was a violation of the Age Discrimination under the Employment Act (ADEA). The acts seek to protect employees above the age of 40 from work discrimination, unto which Thomasville City School violated.

By enacting several actions, the lawsuit filed against the school could have been avoided. Minimum requirements stated on the job listing should have had an age restriction, which is legitimate according to the federal and state regulations. This could have barred Miss Arlene from applying, hence avoiding the complain presentation to the EEOC agency. In addition, Thomasville city schools could have documented the process from job listing, hiring, and intervening to job allocation. This eases an employer's view of decisions and offers opportunity for potential litigation. As presented in the above case, other reasonable cases could have surpassed the claim against age. The institution had the opportunity to present documents of from peer reviewing that could have augured that it was due to Miss. Arlene's performance assessment that she did not get the job. This could have been an evidence and supported the claim that the overall decision was not age discriminatory (WWJ Newsradio, 2008; Narisi, 2011).

Justification of laws suits to the decision makers is essential to allow them find necessary evidence and conferral with an attorney. Arlene Lent vs. Thomasville City Schools was court justified, first since it was against the Age Discrimination clause. According to EEOC, the objective justification since the enhancement of employability of older people in America is amiably legitimate (Sargeant, 2008). Law suits from age-discrimination are termed as prima facie for the purpose of justifying age discrimination. Such addresses the plight and is amicably responsible in maintaining the economic status of America. The older people have collected experience and the young are encouraged to put in their participation and not by hijacking work positions which can be maintained by the older. This allows the young to learn through apprenticeship, thereby maintaining the economic status quo developed.

Case 2

Promotion denial from religion discrimination

In 1995, Miss Bernadette Reynolds was denied promotion due to substantial racial claims of being white. The United States Court of Appeals granted her the lawsuit to proceed with the accusations. The Denver Public Schools in Colorado, a mainly black dominated school practiced reversed discrimination towards Miss. Reynolds. She has been a bilingual instructor with the school and conducted special studies "TOSA" that allows one to be eligible for promotional offices. She has been applying for administrative offices since then, but the school has given her colleagues principalship positions, and left her. She indeed continued but the revelation from the Superintendent of the schools, she decided to pursue legal action and compensation for racial discrimination claims in her promotion denial.

Before presenting the case to a team of legal practitioners, the case had to qualify and have legal support. First, the denial of her promotional was against the federal and state law. The defendants violation of the Title VI rights was that guaranteed her equal job opportunities to the TOSA positions. In addition, to fitting in as a legal complain, she had the direct confirmation from the Superintendant that some of her denial opportunities were in favor of the Hispanics and race that were highly concerned by the institution.

The lawsuit in Miss Reynolds situation could have been avoided by following institutional discipline. An institution and its employees, especially from higher offices do have a code of ethics that seeks to protect an institution from externalized forces and factors. The superintendent had an option of shunning Miss. Reynolds and give her another opinion for not being offered an opportunity from her various administrative office interests. In addition, the institution had an option of avoiding conducting promotions based on resultant considerations that had a direct racial incongruent impact (Buckley, 2011). Denver Public Schools purposed racial promotions that were race-conscious action.