This paper presents six employment law case studies examining federal anti-discrimination statutes and their application to workplace scenarios. Topics covered include religious and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disability discrimination under the ADA, national origin harassment and wrongful termination under Title VII and IRCA, employer liability for third-party sexual harassment, age discrimination under the ADEA, and the legality of private-employer workplace searches. For each case, the paper identifies applicable federal laws, evaluates potential employee claims, and considers defenses available to employers.
There are several federal employment discrimination laws that govern employer conduct in the United States, including the following:
(1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on color, gender, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, and sex, including sexual harassment.
(2) The Civil Rights Act of 1991 provides for monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
(3) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees who are 40 years of age or older.
(4) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.
(5) The Equal Pay Act addresses unequal pay related to gender.
(6) The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees time off for specific health conditions without putting the worker's employment in jeopardy.
(7) Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) makes it illegal to discriminate based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee.
Ms. Riyadh is employed as an account executive with ABC Advertising ("ABC"), a national marketing and advertising firm specializing in domestic and international advertising. Ms. Riyadh began working with ABC as a summer intern during her senior year in business school and was hired as a full-time employee after receiving her M.B.A., with honors, in 1978. During her employment, she has won three national awards for her work.
Despite receiving "outstanding" performance evaluation ratings every year, Ms. Riyadh has never been promoted since she was hired and has been repeatedly passed over. All male employees hired between 1978 and 1988 in the same classification have been promoted from one to four times and earn significantly higher salaries, despite the fact that none of them has won any national awards and some are marginal performers. Three women have been promoted since Ms. Riyadh was hired, but men greatly outnumber women in all positions at ABC.
ABC responded to a preliminary inquiry by asserting that Ms. Riyadh was not promoted because she does not "fit the image" required for higher positions. ABC argues that higher positions demand high visibility, extensive travel, and significant client contact, including presentations before corporate and professional groups. ABC claims that Ms. Riyadh is a very plain woman who refuses to wear makeup or adornments of any kind other than a head scarf, that she is very religious and takes a daily prayer and meditation break during her lunch period, and that her religious beliefs prohibit certain types of socializing, such as drinking alcoholic beverages and eating certain foods. ABC officials state that while Ms. Riyadh is a good employee, they do not believe she is "qualified" to represent ABC in certain capacities, arguing that higher administrative employees must project a polished appearance and engage in social and fraternal activities in order to conduct business.
Ms. Riyadh contends that these factors are not relevant to her ability to perform in any of the higher positions, and that ABC is using them as a pretext for discrimination. She further states that when ABC hired her, she was advised that if she performed well, she could expect to be promoted to account vice-president within two years. She seeks damages for lost wages and benefits and a court order directing ABC to promote her.
In Ms. Riyadh's case, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is directly at issue. The company's stated basis for non-promotion — her plain appearance, her wearing of a head scarf, her observance of daily prayer, and her abstention from alcohol — are not indicators of her fitness to perform higher-level jobs. Rather, they are characteristics directly tied to her religious practice and, potentially, her national origin. The wearing of religious or culturally significant clothing is an expression of one's religion or national origin, and discrimination on either basis is unlawful under Title VII.
The refusal to hire or promote someone because customers or co-workers may be uncomfortable with that person's religion or national origin is just as illegal as refusing to act on those bases directly. This principle extends to all employment decisions, including promotion, transfers, work assignments, and wages. The only circumstance in which an employer might lawfully restrict such expression is a demonstrated showing that accommodating the employee would pose an undue hardship on the business — a high bar that ABC has not established here.
Ms. Riyadh also has a potential gender discrimination claim under Title VII, supported by the stark disparity between her record and that of male employees hired in the same classification who were promoted multiple times despite having weaker performance records. Additionally, her statement that she was promised promotion to account vice-president within two years of hire may support a promissory estoppel or breach-of-contract claim under state law.
To prevail, Ms. Riyadh must demonstrate that she suffered harm as a result of ABC's discriminatory conduct. The evidence of wage disparities, repeated non-promotion, and the employer's pretextual justifications collectively support a strong prima facie case of both religious and gender discrimination under Title VII.
Martha applied for a job as a stock clerk at Good Food Supermarket. During her interview, she disclosed that within the next ten months she would need surgery to remove a tumor from one of her vertebrae, and that even if the surgery were successful, her post-operative range of motion could be severely limited. The job requires a good deal of lifting and a wide range of movement. The interviewer declined to hire Martha on the basis that she might not be able to perform the job after the surgery. Martha filed a claim against Good Food Supermarket.
Martha does not have a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although employers are required to hire qualified workers with disabilities and make reasonable accommodations for them, Martha was not actually disabled at the time of her interview. Under the ADA, temporary ailments do not constitute disabilities. The ADA protects only qualified workers with disabilities — defined as individuals who are capable of performing the essential duties of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Because Martha's condition had not yet manifested as a disability and because the essential functions of the stock clerk role (lifting and wide range of movement) were directly implicated by her anticipated post-surgical limitations, the employer's decision is defensible. Private employers with at least 15 employees are required to comply with the ADA.
Muhammad, an Arab-American high school student, worked after school at a fast-food restaurant, Eddy's BBQ. Several co-workers began asking him why his "cousins" bombed the World Trade Center. Muhammad ignored their taunts. A manager then began adding comments such as, "Hey, Muhammad, we're going to have to check you for bombs." Muhammad felt humiliated and angry. Shortly thereafter, he was terminated for accidentally throwing away a paper cup the manager had been using. Muhammad suspected that his religious and ethnic background was the reason for his termination and filed a claim with the EEOC.
The first issue in this case is the taunting and harassment directed at Muhammad in his workplace on the basis of his national origin and religion. The fact that Muhammad felt humiliated and angered by the conduct is sufficient to support a claim of discrimination based on national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. National origin discrimination means treating an individual differently in their employment because of the country that the individual or his or her ancestors came from.
Employment discrimination laws are also violated when an employee is discriminated against due to:
(1) Marriage to, or association with, persons of a national origin group;
(2) Membership in, or association with, ethnic promotion groups;
(3) Attendance or participation in schools, churches, temples, or mosques generally associated with a national origin group; or
(4) A family name associated with a national origin group.
Examples of unlawful national origin discrimination include the following:
(1) Affiliation: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because an individual is affiliated with a particular religious or ethnic group.
(2) Physical or cultural traits and clothing: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics — such as accent or dress associated with a particular religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. Height and weight requirements may also constitute evidence of discrimination against a specific national origin group if the requirements do not relate to the job.
(3) Perception: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of the perception or belief that a person is a member of a particular racial, national origin, or religious group, even if the person is not.
(4) Association: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of an individual's association with a person or organization of a particular religion or ethnicity.
Laws protecting individuals from national origin discrimination include:
(1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the primary federal law prohibiting national origin discrimination.
(2) The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which protects individuals from employment discrimination based on immigration or citizenship status, and prohibits document abuse discrimination — occurring when employers request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility, reject reasonably genuine-looking documents, or specify certain documents over others.
Individuals protected under IRCA's anti-discrimination provision include citizens or nationals of the United States, permanent residents, lawful temporary residents, refugees, and asylees. Title VII covers workplaces with more than 15 employees, while INA/IRCA prohibits national origin discrimination in workplaces employing between 4 and 14 employees.
These protections apply to both current workers and job applicants. If a current employee is fired or not promoted due to national origin, or if a job applicant is not hired due to national origin, both are protected under the law.
With respect to ethnic jokes or slurs, federal law does not make isolated, offhand teasing automatically unlawful. The conduct must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a tangible employment action, such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion. In Muhammad's case, the harassment was ongoing, involved a manager, and was followed by termination for a trivial infraction — a combination of facts that strongly supports both a hostile work environment claim and a retaliation or pretextual termination claim.
These laws are enforced by the Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) for workplaces with 4 to 14 employees, and by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for workplaces with 15 or more employees. Victims of national origin discrimination in workplaces with 15 or more employees may recover back pay, reinstatement, front pay, compensatory damages (emotional pain and suffering), punitive damages, and other relief to make the individual whole. Attorney fees, expert witness fees, and court costs may also be recovered. Statutes of limitations apply: complaints with the OSC must be filed within 180 days of the alleged violation, and individuals in larger workplaces must file with the EEOC or a cooperating state agency before filing a private lawsuit.
Patsy is a waitress at Tom's Irish Pub. She complained to her boss, the restaurant owner, that Simon, a frequent patron, had been making sexually suggestive comments to her. Patsy detailed Simon's conduct to the owner and requested that Simon be asked to stop, and also requested that another waitress be assigned to Simon's table. The owner said he would look into the matter but delayed action for several weeks out of reluctance to upset Simon, who was one of the restaurant's best customers. When the owner eventually acted, he only politely asked Simon to "go a little easier on Patsy" and ignored Patsy's request to be reassigned. Patsy filed a claim against Tom's Irish Pub.
"Employer duty to address customer sexual harassment"
"Age-based hiring exclusion without individual evaluation"
"Admissibility of evidence from private employer locker search"
You’re 73% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.