Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Smith et al. v. City of Jackson, MS, et al., No. 03-1160 (2005). In sum, this ruling allows employees to prevail in an ADEA claim against their employers without proving that the employer intended to discriminate based on the employee's age." (2006)
In the second caser under review in this study, specifically a case of Dolores Oubre, in Louisiana whose employer, Entergy Operations, Inc., "instituted a new employee evaluation process in which employees were ranked according to two criteria, performance and potential, in comparison with their peers. Ultimately, employees were placed into one of nine groups, and the lowest 10% of the employees had to be placed in the lowest group. Oubre found herself in this group. Given a choice between a severance package and an action plan for one year to upgrade her ranking, she accepted the severance package and then sued." (The Cutback that Cuts the Wrong Way, 2002)
The argument of Oubre was that "company management deliberately implemented a ranking system that was prone to age stereotyping" and that furthermore "prior to the new ranking system, she received positive evaluations every year. The court acknowledged that the facts lent themselves to a disparate impact theory, but concluded that the ranking process was not a neutral process....
Instead, the court described the ranking as one that was impermissibly infected with age stereotyping. This exemplifies a classic case of disparate treatment, and the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment. Oubre v. Entergy Operations Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15306 (E.D. La. 1998)." (Ibid)
CONCLUSION
There are two general theories of employment discrimination and as seen in the first case in this study disparate impact cases have as their focus neutral rules or practices which affect a protected group more harshly than other groups are affected while a disparate treatment case is one that has as its focus the intentional discrimination of a protected group from a non-protected group due to their membership in that group.
Bibliography
The Cutback that Cuts the Wrong Way (2002) Business Law Today Vol. 11, No. 4 March/April 2002. The American Bar Association. Online available at http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2002-03-04/badel.html.
Campbell, Kecia K. (2005) Disparate Impact Claims Available Under the ADEA June 3, 2005 Louisiana Law Blog Online available at http://www.louisianalawblog.com/labor-and-employment-law-disparate-impact-claims-available-under-the-adea.html.
Disparate Impact - Disparate Treatment
Bibliography
The Cutback that Cuts the Wrong Way (2002) Business Law Today Vol. 11, No. 4 March/April 2002. The American Bar Association. Online available at http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2002-03-04/badel.html.
Campbell, Kecia K. (2005) Disparate Impact Claims Available Under the ADEA June 3, 2005 Louisiana Law Blog Online available at http://www.louisianalawblog.com/labor-and-employment-law-disparate-impact-claims-available-under-the-adea.html.
Disparate Impact - Disparate Treatment
The policy required women to wear foundation, concealer, or powder, blush, mascara, and to make sure that they have lip color on at all times. Not only did women have to wear makeup, they were required to have a makeover by an image consultant. Once the employee and the image consultant had devised the employee's "personal best" look, then the employee's picture would be taken, and their appearance would
DUNLAP V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Dunlap v. TVA Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2008) Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2008) Explain why the plaintiff's disparate impact claim failed? A claim of disparate impact implies that the employer (defendant) unintentionally discriminated against the job applicant (plaintiff) (Seiner, 2013, p. 287). Under Title VII, any hiring practice that is fair in form, but through its application is effectively discriminatory, is illegal (Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 2008).
Tanglewood Case Study This report is meant to provide a summary and analysis of Tanglewood and its future respective to its hiring requirements, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) concerns and other similar human resources matters. Included in this report is a hiring need analysis, a gap analysis, an assessment of demographic hiring and promotion percentages, what could or should be done to address any inconsistencies or potential compliance problems and how the
Disparate Impact resides in many kinds of instances where cases of discrimination can be found. It can reside in the field of employment, health, and education (Bornholz & Heckman, 2004). In general, disparate impact is an inconsistency that violates the basic rights of an individual. This includes racial discrimination, unequal business/medical/education practices, age discrimination, and others. USCCR online defines "disparate impact" as follows. The adverse effect of a facially neutral practice
The main defense to a disparate treatment lawsuit is that the plaintiff was not treated differently than similarly-situated people. An ancillary defense to a disparate treatment claim is that the plaintiff was treated differently, but that the discrimination is part of a bona-fide occupational qualification. Reasonable accommodation refers to the accommodations that an employer must provide to an employee under federal anti-discrimination laws. The term is most frequently used to
Fair treatment of workers is a priority for any employee given that it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and protected by labor laws. Since this right is protected by the Constitution and existing federal and state laws, employers face the need to establish work settings and procedures the ensure all employees are treated in a fair and equal manner. Existing labor laws protect employees from discrimination, unfair treatment,