Title VII workplace harassment and employment discrimination law

¶ … workplace harassment exist that are prohibited the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII: quid pro quo actions and the creation of a hostile workplace environment, or hostile environment harassment. This is a clear instance of quid pro quo harassment, nor hostile environment harassment whereby a superior or someone in a position of power threatens to deny a subordinate a promotion, raise, or continued employment, unless the subordinate complies with certain sexual demands. A hostile workplace environment is less clearly defined, but involves the creation of an environment that is intimidating or hostile in nature. In this instance, there was a clear quid pro quo implication that a position would be denied unless the less powerful person bestowed sexual favors upon the individual in the position to hire him.

Question B

The bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception allows for a limited range of employer exemptions from Equal Opportunity Commission restrictions regarding anti-discrimination policy. For example, a director hiring an actor for a production can stipulate he or she needs individuals of a certain age, gender, race, or body type for the role. The employer must show that being of a particular race, sex, or religion is a necessary requirement for doing the job, only then is employment discrimination is permitted. Merely because a casino wants attractive-looking staff to deal cards does not mean that a male cannot perform the job: airlines were once successfully prosecuted for stipulating appearance and weight restrictions for the flight crew that were not germane to the duties of the job.

Question D

The female pilots did have grounds to sue. It is illegal to mandate unnecessary requirements for specific types of employment if such requirements have a disparate impact upon protected groups, including women. Even if it is not the employer's intention to discriminate, it is still illegal under Title VII law. The employer may argue it is necessary to achieve a particular employment objective, but in this case, there is no evidence that the military requirement makes for a safer flying environment for passengers. There is a statistical difference between the standard labor pool and the employer's workplace due to the added, onerous restrictions, without a compelling reason for such added restrictions.