Business and Management
Submitted By sgrho1922
Upon reviewing the Riyadh Case, it is apparent that this situation could possibly be seen as a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which essentially expanded on the rights of the Equal Pay Act. Given that this act prohibits discrimination not only on the basis of sex, but also race, color religion and country of birth and essentially indicates that employers must treat men and women equally in areas such as recruitment, hiring, firing and promotions. In this case, ABC Company is required to hire the most qualified person for the position they are hiring, even if promoting from within. However, their reasons for noting selecting Ms. Riyadh for the promotions, seems to be based upon her religion, their perception of her plain appearance which is likely also related to her religion, and the fact that due to her religion she cannot drink alcoholic beverages, or eat certain foods. ABC Company’s reasons do not seem to be based on the fact that she is not qualified to do the job and the things they mentioned would not prohibit her from advertising. In fact, they are all personal choices for any employee be it male or female as to whether they participate in social drinks, eat all foods, or wear heavy makeup etc. However, being that they have promoted some women within the company, it is not clear if they were promoted to the same advertising positions that she sought, for ABC Company to possibly use this as a defense. Essentially, this case appears to be well founded based on the information given.
I do believe that the UPS employees would win the case against UPS regarding the video demonstrating the handling of packages, possibly containing anthrax. Although UPS did provide a video, the lack of subtitles and/or an interpreter, did not meet the standard for providing reasonable accommodations for the deaf employees, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although the video was provided, the level of comprehension that would be needed in order to ensure the proper handling of the packages could not be achieved just by watching the video—at least it could not be confirmed. Watching the video will leave final action or handling of the packages up to the interpretation of the employee and how they “perceived” the video. They were not able to read or have guidelines and instructions interpreted to them to ensure full understanding and application on their job for the possible handling of such packages, thus possibly putting the employees at risk in the future due to the lack of understanding.
This case is clearly based on harassment based on nationality or religious beliefs, which is a violation of Title VII. I do believe that the claim file with the EEOC will be successful. Not only was Muhammad harassed with taunting and inappropriate comments, causing a hostile working environment, but it was done by his manager, who later fired him for throwing away a paper cup that he was using. Based on the fact that most companies do not have policies that call for immediate termination of employees for throwing away used cups inadvertently, the grounds of Muhammad’s termination would definitely be called in to question given the racist taunting that occurred prior to the termination.
In the case of the Irish Pub, I do believe that Patsy will have a case against them given that she is being sexually harassed which is a violation of Civil Rights/Title VII Act. Although the law does not prohibit simple teasing, off color comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, sexual harassment is still illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision. Essentially, Patsy has been forced to endure these comments and has spoken to the harasser asking him to stop, but to no avail. She has also reported the occurrences to her manager as well as asking to be reassigned. Unfortunately, her manager does not appear to have documented the occurrences appropriately, nor taken appropriate action to stop the harassment and remove the employee. Instead, the manager appears to take a subdued approach and Patsy would be forced to continue to work in the hostile environment being harassed or eventually have to leave her job due to the ongoing events.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employers from treating applicants or employees unfairly due to their age, for those that are over the age of forty. In this case, Sam was turned down for the job because he is 65 years of age. Although the reasoning behind this was due to a generalized perception of individuals in Sam’s age group, that would restrict or prohibit him from being an effective ambulance driver. However, it does not appear that Sam ever indicated any health or other related issues that would prohibit him from performing the job at optimum levels. More importantly, he was not evaluated to formally determining if he had any disqualifying characteristics or if he in did would be successful in the position. Given that the decision was made based on a generalized assumption based on age, Sam would have a well-founded case.
In the case involving the USPS employee, I do not believe that the search was illegal. The facilities and all areas there in are monitored by video for general surveillance for theft protection or production monitoring. Given that the employee was recorded stealing during regular surveillance, it was appropriate for management to follow up with a search of his locker, to look for evidence of stolen stamps. The lockers are the property of the facility, and they are not the personal property of the employee and the employer had just case to perform the search.