Respondent's Case Summary

Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.

STATEMENT OF FACTS: Sheila White interviewed with Marvin Brown and obtained a job as a “track laborer” with Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company. Shortly after her hire date, however, she assumed forklift operator duties. This new assignment still fell under the “track laborer” position description, and White occasionally performed those duties although her primary responsibility was operating the forklift. Three months into her new job, White complained to the company that her immediate supervisor was sexually harassing her on the job. He was temporarily suspended and required to attend sexual harassment training. White was then informed that she was being reassigned to track labor duties only. White

Complainant is an African-American female. Prior to the alleged incident of discrimination, Complainant had used the Respondent’s copier on several occasions. Complainant contends that in November of 2011, she entered Respondent’s store to use the copier. Complainant alleges that something went wrong with the copier and one of the Respondent’s employees accused her of not knowing how to properly operate the machine. Complainant contends that she was embarrassed and offended that Respondent’s employee did not believe she could operate the machine and she subsequently engaged in a heated conversation with the employee which resulted in the employee calling the police and Complainant being arrested for disorderly conduct. Complainant

Plaintiff, Deborah Burke, submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant Strickland Watson Pierce, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should not be dismissed because she exhausted all the administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and being terminated during the investigation. Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009); Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corr., 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001); Franceschi v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2008). Further, the conduct she suffered in the workplace was sufficiently severe to qualify as a sexually hostile environment. The Court should deny the motion.

The company offered inconsistent versions of why Mr. Gill was terminated and who did the termination. They were indifferent to Mr. Gill’s concerns and did nothing to address those employees engaging in blatant racial harassment even after other black employees complained and, most damaging, the company retaliated against Mr. Gill when he complained by terminating his

The disparate treatment doctrine requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Three provisions required to prove disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. Proof of discriminatory motive is critical and may be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment. Proof may also be inferred from the falsity of the employer’s explanation for the treatment, (Walsh, 2010).

The case, Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, explores the issue of suspected racial discrimination associated with disparate treatment and disparate impact caused by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) against a qualified, experienced boilermaker and foreman that is African American. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding this case include: Is this a case of disparate treatment and/or impact and was the plaintiff, David Dunlap, subject to racial discrimination? Finally, did the TVA use personal hiring practices that allowed for racial bias in the interviewing process?

Ante, at 356, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 394 (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, his regression analyses showed there were disparities within stores. The majority's contention to the contrary reflects only an arcane disagreement about statistical method--which the District Court resolved in the plaintiffs' favor. 222 F.R.D. 137, 157 (ND Cal. 2004). Appellate review is no occasion to disturb a trial court's handling of factual disputes of this order.Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (1982). Ante, at 352-355, 180 L. Ed. 2d, at 391-392. That case has little relevance to the question before the Court today. The lead plaintiff in Falcon alleged discrimination evidenced by the company's failure to promote him and other Mexican-American employees and failure to hire Mexican-American applicants. There were “no common questions of law or fact” between the claims of the lead plaintiff and the applicant class. 457 U.S., at 162, 102 S. Ct. 2364, 72 L. Ed. 2d 740 (Burger, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added). The plaintiff-employee alleged that the defendant-employer had discriminated against him intentionally. The applicant class claims, by

Ms. Fisher along with her legal counsel based her allegation of racial discrimination on the university’s system

2. Shaun, a woman of Hispanic origin, waits tables at Mongomey's Restaurant. Phil, an African-American local businessman who frequently brings clients to Mongomey's for lunch, dislikes Hispanics. As a result, he lies to the owner of the restaurant and tells the owner that Shaun referred to him by an ugly racial epithet. Once this complaint is brought to Shaun's attention, she is demoted from waitress to dishwasher. Shaun filed a Title VII claim against Phil, even though Shaun works for Mongomey's, not for Phil. Analyze the basis for the cause of action, the company exposure, steps that could have been taken by the company to reduce exposure, the outcome, and support for the outcome. Utilize applicable law in your analysis.

Charges of workplace discrimination is said to be at an all time high. During the 2015 fiscal year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity released information that claims there were more than 89,000 charges filed for workplace discrimination. One of the top ten charges is said to be retaliation, which had an estimate 39,757 cases in 2015, which is 44.5 percent of all charges filed. Retaliation is said to be in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, For the purpose of this research paper I will provide the understanding of both Acts, while also taking a case that deals with to provide the basis of the case, the findings, and the outcome of the charges.

In a study that was reviewed by Deitch and her colleagues (2003), blacks were interviewed at work about whether the felt they were being discriminated. Most participants had difficulty answering because they were not sure whether discrimination was linked to their race or different factors like gender. Such inconclusive research only adds to the haziness of work related issues defined as ones of “racial discrimination” (Deitch, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief & Bradley).

Since the end of the segregation with the Civil Rights Movement, many believed that racism in the United States had come to an end. However, there are still many instances where racial inequality still occurs, and this is especially prevalent in the workplace. Although this sort of discrimination is illegal, individuals cannot always be prosecuted for this crime because it often happens in subtle manners that are not easy to prove. Regardless, every person, no matter the color of their skin, has the inherent right to be treated with fairness and equality, especially when dealing with matters in the corporate world.

What’s worse, race discrimination is hardly to be proved when it is actually charged by employees. In 2014, “the EEOC received 31,073 charges alleging race-based discrimination, but dismissed 71.4% of them due to a lack of reasonable cause” (Vega, 2015).