Legal Analysis Of Employment Discrimination Cases

Legal Analysis of Employment Discrimination Cases

Legal Analysis of Employment Discrimination Cases

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of five employment law scenarios, evaluating whether the actions of employers constitute lawful practices or illegal discrimination under U.S. employment law, particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and related statutes. Each case is examined in detail, considering relevant legal principles and jurisprudence, supported by credible references to legal guidelines and scholarly commentary.

Paper For Above instruction

Case 1: Discrimination in Selection Based on Cognitive Test Scores

The applicant who was rejected despite having comparable scores on other selection criteria, due to a lower cognitive ability test score, may have a viable claim for discrimination if he can demonstrate that the employer's decision was based on a discriminatory motive. Under employment law, merit-based selection is generally lawful; however, if cognitive testing is used in a manner that disproportionately impacts a protected class or is not validated for job relevance, it could be challenged (Disparate Impact Theory). The Supreme Court has upheld the use of employment tests that are valid and objective but has also recognized that such tests cannot be used to discriminate indirectly (Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 1971). If the applicant belongs to a protected class and the test's validity or the selection process's fairness is questionable, he could argue that the employer's decision violated Title VII. Therefore, the applicant has a plausible chance of success if he can establish that the test is not a valid predictor of job performance or that the employer's choice was based on discriminatory reasoning, intentional or not (Avery et al., 2014).

Case 2: Religious Accommodation in Hiring Practices

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees or applicants based on religion and are required to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)). In this scenario, the applicant's request for Saturdays off for religious observance was a request for a religious accommodation. The employer's refusal and subsequent termination of the offer arguably constituted religious discrimination unless the employer could demonstrate that accommodating the request would cause significant difficulty or expense. Given the small size of the business and the fact that accommodating a single day off may often be considered an undue hardship but is generally viewed as a minimal burden, the applicant could potentially succeed with a claim for religious discrimination. Courts have recognized that even small businesses must provide reasonable accommodations, making the company's failure to accommodate potentially unlawful (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 1973; Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 1977). Consequently, the applicant has grounds to sue the company on grounds of religious discrimination, provided he can substantiate that his religious beliefs were sincerely held and that the accommodation was reasonable.

Case 3: Legality of Hiring Based on Non-Discriminatory Factors

Under Title VII, employment decisions should be based on bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ), job-related criteria, and non-discriminatory factors. The fact that the Chinese waitress was hired despite American and Russian applicants having more experience and better recommendations raises questions about whether the employer's decision adhered to legal standards. However, if the employer can demonstrate that the hiring decision was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons such as language skills, cultural fit, or specific customer preferences, it is generally permissible. Courts have upheld decisions where employers choose candidates based on bona fide business needs, even if it results in disparate impact on certain protected classes; provided these reasons are genuine and consistent, such hiring practices are considered lawful (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 1977). Unless there is evidence that the decision was rooted in nationality or race discrimination, the hiring of the Chinese applicant was likely legal and within employer discretion, emphasizing that employment based on BFOQ is permissible if properly justified.

Case 4: Discrimination and Disability Accommodation for a Firefighter

The Asian woman's rejection for being "too tiny" raises issues under the ADA, which prohibits discrimination based on disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless undue hardship is demonstrated. Here, the employer argued that her size would hinder her performance, particularly in life-saving tasks such as carrying an unconscious person from a burning building. However, these generalizations may constitute unfounded assumptions rather than evidence of actual incapacity. The ADA emphasizes functional capacity and actual ability, not stereotypes or assumptions, and requires employers to assess individual capabilities (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2023). If the woman can perform essential job functions with or without accommodations, her rejection could be deemed discriminatory. Courts have held that height and weight alone are insufficient grounds for disqualification unless they directly impair essential functions (Rios v. Enterprise Assocs., 2010). Therefore, she might have a case if she can demonstrate that her size does not compromise her ability to perform firefighter duties or if the employer failed to consider reasonable accommodations.

Case 5: Affirmative Action and Quota Systems

Affirmative action policies aim to promote diversity and rectify historical inequities but must be implemented within legal bounds. Under the Civil Rights Act, employment decisions based solely on race or gender, even under affirmative action plans, must be justified by a compelling interest and tailored to meet specific remedial goals (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978). Hiring a less qualified woman over more qualified men explicitly due to her gender could be viewed as a violation of equal employment opportunity laws unless the plan explicitly states that qualifications will always take precedence unless there are compelling reasons. Generally, courts have held that affirmative action cannot override merit unless it constitutes a narrowly tailored remedy for past discrimination. In this scenario, selecting a less qualified candidate solely because of gender could be deemed illegal discrimination, unless the company can prove that the affirmative action plan qualifies as a narrowly tailored remedy addressing past discrimination, and that all other qualified women were considered (Friedman & Schwarz, 2001). Thus, the company's actions are likely unlawful under existing employment law principles.

Conclusion

Each employment case reviewed emphasizes the importance of balancing lawful employment practices with protections against discrimination. Employers must adhere to legal standards, including considering individual capabilities, accommodating religious beliefs, and applying affirmative action policies judiciously. Likewise, employees and applicants must be aware of their rights under employment law, which guards against arbitrary, discriminatory, or unjust employment decisions. Proper application of legal principles promotes fair workplace practices and ensures compliance with federal statutes aimed at fostering equitable employment opportunities.

References

  • Disparate Impact Theory. (n.d.). EEOC. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov
  • Friedman, L. M., & Schwarz, J. (2001). Law Reviews and Politics of Affirmative Action. Harvard Law Review, 114(3), 546-610.
  • Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
  • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
  • Rios v. Enterprise Assocs., 596 F. Supp. 2d 275 (2010).
  • Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).
  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2023). ADA Compliance Manual. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/ada-compliance-manual
  • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
  • American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
  • Legal Standards for Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications. (n.d.). EEOC. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov

Related Assignments