Ethics, Law Case, Critical Thinking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act permits retaliation claims because they help to prevent situations in which workers who are unlawfully discriminated against pursue those discrimination law suits. Were Title VII of this act not to permit retaliation claims, then there is a possibility that Regalado would have dropped her law suit of discrimination against the company both she and her husband worked for, just so that he could either keep his job or have it reinstated. Retaliations claims require inclusion in Title VII of this act to keep employers honest in their dealings with their employees. Thompson was not part of the lawsuit that Regalado was formulating (Your textbook, p. 415), yet he was fired as a means of retaliating against her for producing a law suit against the company. Without the inclusion of retaliation claims, Thompson would have unfairly lost a job.

North American Stainless did not act ethically in firing Thompson. In fact, this company acted unethically in doing so. Its primary issues were that it had to deal with a discrimination lawsuit posed by another employee. It is not ethical behavior to attempt to persuade an employee to drop his or her discrimination law suit so that her fiancee can regain his job. Such tactics would ultimately let the company continue to discriminate against people, which is unethical.

This case does increase the possibility that companies can face additional lawsuits for firing the relatives or friends of people who work for their company. However, it only does so if those were fired as a means of retaliating against someone else (the other family member or friend as it may be).

The case of the National Association for the Advancement of...

Town of Harrison, New Jersey, could not have been argued with the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. One reason why this sentiment is true is because the crux of the matter of this case existed at the county, and not the state level. Granted, the county is within the state, but this Clause was set forth to regulate issues which affected the entire state, and not particular towns within a county. However, the primary reason why this the Interstate Commerce Clause could not have applied to this particular case was because the case does not involve commerce. Commerce typically relates to the moving of goods. In this particular case there were no goods being moved or attempted to be moved. The aforementioned clause was set up to regulate the trafficking of goods between (inter) states, which does not apply to this case.
This case actually could have been argued with the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. One reason that it could have been is because this particular part of the Constitution gives Congress the right to determine activities that take place within states; an examination of a number of court cases proves this fact (FindLaw, 2014). Moreover, the definition of commerce helps to clarify the fact that this part of the Constitution would apply to the aforementioned case. In Gibbons v. Ogden, former Chief Justice Marshall determined that commerce not only applied to moving items but also to "intercourse" between people in a state (FindLaw, 2014). The interaction of African-Americans with the town in question in this case constitutes intercourse.

The time that an employee can lawfully submit members for a union is during non-working time. Such a time includes before…