Term Paper on "Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act"

Quoted Instructions for "Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act" Assignment:

COURSE: Employment Law

INSTRUCTIONS: Write a complete answer to each question. Make sure you answer all parts of each question and provide a detailed legal analysis of your answer. Clearly state the applicable law (ie. statutes such as Title VII and/or cases such as Griggs v. Duke Power) and any assumptions.

You may use any resources available to you to research the answers to the questions, although you are not required to research the answers.

The paper must be in the following format: (1) Double-spaced (2) Spell-checked (3) Grammatically correct (4) Use appropriate graduate-level research, if necessary (5) Use appropriate APA citation within the text of the paper (6) Contain a bibliography listing any research sources (other than the textbook) cited in correct APA format (7) Clearly state the applicable law.

READ THE FOLLOWING 6 PASSAGES OF INFORMATION AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS INDIVIDUALLY

1. Ms. Riyadh is employed as an account executive with ABC Advertising (*****ABC*****). ABC is a national marketing and advertising firm specializing in domestic and international advertising. ABC has its corporate headquarters in this state and represents many major public and private corporations throughout the United States. 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, from the University of Michigan in 1978. Ms. Riyadh has been employed with ABC at its office in the state capital since 1978. During her employment, she has won three national awards for her work.

For several reasons, Ms. Riyadh believes ABC has illegally discriminated against her and she now wants to sue the company. She says the company's practice has been to promote employees from within. Ms. Riyadh states that despite receiving "outstanding" performance evaluation ratings each year she has worked there, she has never been promoted since she was hired and has been repeatedly passed over for any promotions.

She also says that all of the male employees who were hired between 1978 and 1988 in the same classification as hers have been promoted from one to four times and earn significantly higher salaries. In addition, none of these employees has won any national awards, and a few of these individuals are marginal employees. She notes that three women have been promoted since she was hired, but points out that 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 doesn't "fit the image" that is right for the higher positions. ABC claims the higher positions have high visibility, require extensive travel, and have greatly increased client contact, including presentations before corporate and professional groups. ABC argues that Ms. Riyadh is a very plain woman, that she refuses to wear make up 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 break, and that her religious beliefs prohibit certain types of "fraternizing," 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. ABC argues that in the advertising field, it is essential that higher "administrative" employees project a polished appearance and engage in social and fraternal activities in order to obtain and conduct business.

Ms. Riyadh states that ABC is discriminating against her. She argues that these factors are not relevant to her ability to perform in any of the higher positions, and that ABC is simply using other rationales as a ploy to justify discriminating against her. She further states that when ABC hired her, she was advised that if she did a good job, she could expect to be promoted to the position of account vice-president within two years.

Ms. Riyadh seeks damages for lost wages and benefits. She also wants a court order directing ABC to promote her to a higher position. Analyze Ms. Riyadh*****s case. Identify all potential claims and any defenses available to ABC.

Make sure you clearly state the applicable law

2. Candy works for Road Hog trucking Company as a truck inspector. Over the last several months large amounts of cargo that Road Hog was supposed to carry for various shippers has disappeared from Road Hog trucks, prior to delivery. The Road Hog terminal manager suspects that the disappearances are attributable to thefts committed by his employees, but he has no idea who the thieves might be. He comes up with the idea that, even though he does not think Candy is the thief, she probably knows who is, so he will administer the polygraph test to Candy. During the test, he will ask her, with respect to all other employees, whether she has information about whether they have committed the thefts. Is the terminal manager*****s plan legal? Explain your answer.

3. Paul Jones was an operations manager at the Wallsbury Company. His employment status was that of an employee at will. Jones received certain email messages at home, and he replied to his supervisor by email. His email messages contained some provocative language, including a reference to "kill the backstabbing jerks" and a reference to the "Jim Jones Koolaid affair". Later Jones was given 2 weeks notice of his termination and he was told that his email remarks were inappropriate and unprofessional. Jones believes he is a victim of invasion of privacy because the email messages caused his termination and the company had promised that email communication would not be intercepted and used as a basis for discipline or discharge. The company denies that it intercepted the email messages and points out that Jones himself send the unprofessional comments to his supervisor. Who should win the case *****“ Jones or Wallsbury Company? Why?

4. Dr. C. Brown, was an employee of Mars Pharmaceutical Products Inc. and was severely injured and hospitalized when a vat used in the production of AAXXN, an anesthetic ingredient, overflowed, spraying toxic chemicals into the immediate area. Brown, an employee with 20 years experience was tending the vat at the time of the overflow. OSHA inspector James Johnson was dispatched to investigate the incident. Johnson spoke with some employees who helped wash down Brown. A fellow employee who saw Brown after the accident told Johnson that Brown was "covered from head to toe with chemical, including his head and mouth." Brown's supervisor told Johnson that it was "company policy" that the vat operator wear a respirator, chemical goggles, and gloves. Although no one testified as to exactly what type of protective gear that Brown was wearing, the OSHRC found Mars in violation of a specific regulation that compels an employer to make sure that an employee engaged in an operation like Brown's is wearing full-body protective gear, including boots, chemical retardant clothes, a full face shield and a self-contained breathing apparatus.

Mars appealed this decision to the court of appeals, claiming that there was not enough evidence to support a citation for a violation of the chemical clothing requirements as no one testified exactly as to what Brown was wearing. What factors should the court consider when deciding whether to enforce or vacate an OSHRC decision? Should the court set aside this OSHRC decision? Why or why not?

5. Plato Corporation hears through the corporate grapevine that its employees are unhappy with working conditions at the manufacturing plant and are looking into bringing in a union. In an effort to stop the plant's unionization, Plato posts a notice on the lunchroom bulletin board stating that anyone found to be sympathetic with unions will be terminated. Is this strategy a permissible way for Plato to discourage unions? Why or why not?

6. A video camera aimed at the factory floor where U.S. Postage stamps are printed records what appears to be Murray, a line employee, stealing sheets of stamps from the production line. Based on the tape, factory officials search Murray's locker and find the stolen stamps. Murray challenges the search as unconstitutional. Is the search legal? Why or why not?