- All Free Papers and Essays for All Students

Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Autor:   •  January 22, 2013  •  Essay  •  1,418 Words (6 Pages)  •  1,320 Views

Page 1 of 6

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

I do not think Parris will succeed with her allegations. The issue is not the fact that she is a woman, but that he had two employees that were dating. This caused conflict within in his company. Usually, and employer has a policy in place to define the rules of dating co-workers. If there were a policy in place then both Sherri and H.D. would have been in violation of the policy. It looks as though both H.D and W.W were the owners of the company and because the company’s name is Thomas and Thomas Contracting. One owner can fire or discipline another.

The fact that it was an extramarital affair makes this situation even worse. H.D. Thomas could have disciplined his son but to what extent? As an employer to discipline his son for having an affair with his co-worker would be appropriate but to discipline, his son because he cheated on his wife is another. There is a thin line here because of the familial relations.H.D. Thomas was the son of the owner of the company. It was easier for the owner to fire Sherri than to fire his son. I do not think gender or sex had anything to do with his decision to terminate Sherri’s employment.

There is no constitutional right for smokers. Many states have no smoking policies, along with other companies that have designated smoking areas. If Carla decides to take her boss and company to court, she can sue on grounds of, Negligence for Failure to Provide a Safe Workplace/Injunctive Relief, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Carla has a right to work in a place that provides a safe environment, which means safe from harm and safe from anything or anyone that may cause mental, physical or emotional harm. The new boss was not pleased with Carla’s “nagging,” he decided to move her from an office where she had protection from the cigarette smoke, to a cubical surrounding by smokers. This can be seen as harassment and retaliation. All of these factors can help build and win Carla’s case with a possible payout because of unfair treatment and undue stress.

Although, some states do not have smoking policies there are other agencies that regulate indoor air quality such as the EPA. There are also states with local governments that can weigh in on the ability to sue an employer and a boss.

In the case of DeFreitas v. Horizon Investment Mgt. Corp., 10th Cir., No. 08-4034 (Aug. 14, 2009). Ms. DeFreitas was terminated due to the need to take 6 weeks off for a medical procedure. Her employer terminated her for “bad performance”, which was not the case during her tenure with the company. Ms. DeFreitas was given a promotion six months after hire and promoted a year after her hire date. This was in praise of her stellar performance with Horizon Investment.

Matt was terminated for a low performance


Download as:   txt (8.2 Kb)   pdf (111.8 Kb)   docx (13.3 Kb)  
Continue for 5 more pages »