Upgrade to remove ads
MGMT 448 Exam 2 Cases
Terms in this set (25)
Jones v. Robinson Property Grp
-Ralph Jones is a qualified black poker dealer who was not given a permanent position based on race. -Court ruled that the employer showed disparate treatment
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trans
-3 employees were 'misappropriating' company property. 2 white, 1 black, all male. 2 white employees were dismissed, black employee remained at job. The difference (races) of employees determined if they were hired or fired.
-Court ruled Title VII prohibits racial discrimination against Caucasians as well as African-Americans.
Vaughn v. Edel
-Black female attorney was terminated for poor performance. Alleged race discrimination in that her employer intentionally determined not to give her necessary feedback about her performance that would have helped her perform better and perhaps avoid dismissal.
-Court upheld employee's claim.
Bradley v. Pizzaco
-Bradley is a black delivery driver who was fired for not following the no shave code. He suffers from PFB, a skin disorder that affects almost half of all black males, which can be irritated further by shaving.
-Court held disparate impact upon blacks and violation of Title VII, because this could have been reasonably accommodated.
Lynch v. Freeman
-Female carpenter's apprentice (Lynch) sued her employer (Freeman) for gender discrimination, alleging the failure to furnish adequate sanitary toilet facilities at her worksite.
-The court found the unsanitary facilities violated Title VII.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
-Hopkins denied partnership at Price Waterhouse for two years in a row based on lack of conformity to stereotypes about how women should act and what they should look like.
-Supreme Court ruling that established gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination; and established mixed-motive framework that enables employees to prove discrimination when other, lawful reasons for adverse employment action exist alongside discriminatory motivations or reasons.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta
-Phillips was a mother with pre-school aged children. Martin Marietta had a policy that did not allow the hiring of mothers with pre-school aged children because they were assumed tot be unreliable employees. Phillips applied for a job there and was denied because of her circumstance as a mother.
-Supreme Court ruling that established under Title VII that an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school aged children while hiring men with such children. Sex discrimination case.
Wedow v. City of Kansas City
-Female firefighters were not given proper firefighting uniforms (while male firefighters were given two uniforms), which put them at risk for years; were not given restroom or shower facilities; and were not otherwise treated comparably to male firefighters.
-The court ruled that the provision of inadequate gear and facilities constituted gender discrimination.
Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co
-Espinoza, a Mexican national admitted to residence in the US and married to US National, sued Farah Mfg. Co. for their refusal to hire her on the basis of her Mexican citizenship.
-Supreme Court held that an employer's refusal to hire a person because they are not a US citizen does not constitute employment discrimination on the basis of "national origin" in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Garcia v. Spun Steak
Garcia, employee of Spun Steak, sued Spun Steak after the company imposed an English-only rule on its employees.
-Supreme Court ruled that English-only workplace rules do not discriminate against Spanish-speaking employees.
Alonzo v. Chase Manhattan
Alonzo, a Hispanic employee, sued his employer for national origin discrimination, alleging he was the only Hispanic in his unit and the only person subjected to name calling and racial slurs because of it. The question at hand is whether or not Alonzo could sue for both national origin discrimination and race discrimination (is Hispanic a racial category?)
-Court ruled that Alonzo claims of racial discrimination are reasonably related to his claims of national origin discrimination as they fall within a reasonable scope of EEOC investigation.
Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry
-Workers from Peru entered US legally as H-2A agricultural workers--workers who are only permitted to remain in the US as long as the worker is employed by a particular employer. Perry, the employer, notified the INS that the workers left the farm unannounced in the middle of night, but did not claim they were workers. The workers sued the employer, and immediately after he learned of the suit, the employer reported the workers as Peruvian terrorists.
-Court ruled that the employer's actions constituted an adverse employment action. National origin discrimination.
Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Trust
-Cortezano was a banker for Salin Band & Trust. She assisted her husband, an undocumented Mexican citizen, in opening a bank account. She was fired after telling her employers of her husband's immigration status and filed suit claiming national origin discrimination.
-Court ruled that Title VII protections do not extend to immigration status--only discrimination based on one's ancestry
TWA v. Hardison
-Hardison worked for TWA and was subject to a seniority system in collective-bargaining agreement between employer and the union. Hardison's religious beliefs prohibit him from working on Saturdays, which was accommodated until he was moved to a new position and lost seniority status. Employer attempted to accommodate but could not without hurting the union. Hardison sued on the basis of religious discrimination.
-Supreme Court ruled Title VII was not violated because TWA made reasonable efforts to accommodate.
EEOC v. Chemisco
-Employee was religious and informed her supervisors of her inability to work on Saturdays due to her religious beliefs. Supervisors made no attempt to accommodate, and employee was fired. Employer even tried to argue that she was not religious.
-Court denied summary judgment to defendants Chemisco.
Peterson v. Willmer Communications
-Employee was a member of a religious group that believed in white supremacy, and was demoted when a newspaper article was published giving his religious views.
-Court held that though employee's belief was similar to groups such as the KKK, which were political groups not given protection under Title VII, this was a religion that required Title VII protection and the employee could not be demoted simply for having this religious belief.
Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard
-Employee sued employer for religious discrimination and alleged religious harassment after being terminated for repeatedly refusing to remove biblical passages that were posted in his workplace cubicle, easily seen by all, in response to employer's workplace diversity posters that included affinity orientation.
-Court upheld the termination, concluding that the employer was not required to go along with employee's admitted goal of hurting gay and lesbian employees in an effort to get them to "repent and be saved."
Cloutier v. Costco
-Employee was a member of the Church of Body modification, which required her to wear facial jewelry, including extensive facial piercings. Costco had a policy that prohibited the wearing of facial jewelry other than earrings. Costco offered the employee option of covering her piercings or covering it with a clear retainer. Employee sued for alleged failure to reasonably accommodate her religious belief.
-Court determined that granting the exemption would be an undue hardship because it would adversely affect the employer's public image.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
-Employee alleged sexual harassment even though she lost no tangible job benefits. Bank branch manager repeatedly made advances towards employee, which she repeatedly denied until she felt that she would lose her job. This man repeatedly assaulted her and fondled her in front of other employees.
-Supreme Court determined quid pro quo was not the only type of sexual harassment, meaning that this type of situation described in the case constitutes hostile environment sexual harassment.
Bryson v. Chicago State University
-Bryson was a professor who held several elected and volunteer positions at CSU. Then-Provost Sesay propositioned her several times and when denied multiple times by Bryson, she lost her in-house title and other committee assignments. Bryson alleges quid pro quo sexual harassment.
-Court ruled that depriving a person of the building blocks for a promotion is just as serious as depriving them of the job itself.
Showalter v. Allison Reed Grp
-Two employees alleged they were sexually harassed, alleging they were forced to engage in various sexual activities with the general manager's secretary by the GM under the threat of the loss of their jobs.
-The court ruled that plaintiffs were subjected to sexual harassment and hostile work environment and entitled to damages.
Burlington v. Ellerth
Employee claimed she was discharged because of unwanted persistent sexual advances by her supervisor. Lost no tangible job benefit because of his actions towards her and even had a promotion during her employment.
-Court ruled she could still bring a cause of action based on hostile environment sexual harassment even though the plaintiff did not report the harassment until a few weeks after she left.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore
-Male oil rig employee was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by fellow employees who were male. Complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action. Employee filed complaint against his employer, alleging he was discriminated against in his employment because of his sex.
-The Supreme Court concluded sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII.
McDonnell Douglas v. Green
Green, employee of McDonnell Douglas and civil rights activist, engaged with others in "disruptive and illegal activity" against his employer in the form of a traffic stall-in. Activity was done as part of Green's protest that his discharge was racially motivated. McDonnell Douglas rejected his reemployment application on grounds of illegal conduct.
-The Supreme Court sets forth in this case how to prove disparate treatment case under Title VII. The employee can use an inference of discrimination drawn from a set of inquiries the Court set forth.
Griggs v. Duke Power
-Duke Power Co. had a policy of only employing blacks in one of its five departments (Labor). Duke instituted a policy requiring new hires to have a high school diploma and passing scores on two general intelligence tests in order to be placed in any department other than Labor. Black employees sued, alleging that the requirements are not job related and have the effect of disqualifying blacks from emplooyment or transfer at a higher rate than whites.
-The Supreme Court held that the act dictated that job requirements which have a disproportionate impact on groups protected by Title VII be shown to be job related.
This set is often in folders with...
MGMT 448 Exam 1
MGMT 448 Exam 1
MGMT 448 Cases
MGMT 448 Exam 1 Concepts
You might also like...
SPHR Court Cases
Civil Court Cases, HOA
Civil Rights Court Cases
Other sets by this creator
MGMT 448 Exam 3 Cases
FLSP 301 Cap. 1
MGMT 448 Exam 1
MGMT 355 Ch. 12, 13, 14
Other Quizlet sets
Astronomy 115 Exam 2
Psych 101 Test 2
Vocab HW 7.2 unit 7