1 Discrimination in Employment cases G514, spring 2013 Kelley Regan

Kern V. Dynalectron Corp. 1. Disparate treatment, because Kern is being treated differently due to his religion. Religion is a BFOQ. 2. Religious discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. That he converted from Baptist to Muslim and then back. B. He was qualified for the position C. After converting back to Baptist he was let go D. He was promised another job, but not for 4 months. 4. They could argue that Kern knew that the job required Pilots be Muslim due to the mission route 5. Kerns attorney would ask for proof that he was qualified, proof that he did convert to Muslim for the job and why he converted back to Baptist. Also, proof that they claim they had no other jobs available immediately. Dynalectrons attorneys would ask for proof of the reasons they require Muslim pilots and prove that they did not have another job available for four months. Also, religion is a BFOQ and is facially discriminatory. EEOC V. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.

2 1. Disparate treatment, due to the race of the plaintiff and the conviction of larceny. 2. Racial discrimination and conviction of larceny. 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. that he has a qualified truck driver B. he has served prison time for his crime and admitted it on his application 4. Their defense would be that it had nothing to do with his race and that it was due to his prison sentence for larceny, and they have a company policy of not hiring convicts. They would also discuss their annual loss due to employee theft and cannot chance hiring a convict. 5. To see the policy they have of not hiring convicts, and also to see proof of the race of other employees to make sure they have a diverse employee population. Also, proof of their stated losses due to theft. The defendants attorney would ask to see proof of the employees conviction and how long ago it was. They may ask to see an employment record. They would also show their annual loss due to theft and prove that they do hire employees of all races. Baker V. Emery Worldwide 1. Disparate impact, because the applicant was scored on a scale and there was only one other female the rest of the applicants were male. 2. Gender discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. she was already employed by Emerys predecessor since 1986 B. she was qualified and scored a seven out of 10 on the scale. Four males were hired and their scores were equal to or less than Bakers C. the plaintiffs manager indicated there was some uncertainty about how the five categories of interviewer questions were weighted by the interviewers.

3 4. She was unqualified according to the interviewers, and only scored a seven 5. the plaintiffs attorney would ask why such a disproportionate of hires were male, what were their scores why was she deemed unqualified. They could also ask to see her work record since 1986 to determine if there were any problems with her performance, attendance, or other work issues. The defendants attorney may ask the interviewers what questions they asked, what her answers were and how in fact were they weighted. They may also bring up any issues from her previous work record. EEOC V. Insurance Company of North America (INA) 1. Disparate treatment, because he was honest and stated he had 30 years experience so from that they can assume he is in his 50s. 2. Age discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. That he is qualified for the position having 30 years experience B. the ask for two years of experience and they hired a candidate with no experience C. that he would delve too deeply into the insureds affairs, and that is an assumption and not a very positive statement. 4. INAs defense could be that they were looking for someone with less experience. They may have wanted to train someone with less experience and assumed a person with 30 years experience may be to set in their ways to train. It does not indicate if the plaintiff has a degree, if not also use that against him. 5. The plaintiffs attorney could ask for the newspaper ad. They could ask why INA assumed the plaintiff would delve too deeply into the insureds affairs. They could ask why they hired a candidate with no experience when the ad asked for two years of experience. They could ask

4 about the difference in salary that would be spent on a candidate with no experience versus one with 30 years of experience. The defendants attorney could ask for proof of a college degree. They could possibly discuss how they wanted to train someone with little or no experience. They can also discuss the fact that they would have to pay the plaintiff a larger salary since he had much more experience. Also, they should explain why they assumed he would delve into the insureds affairs. Fisher V. Vassar College 1. Disparate treatment because women who were married were not promoted or given tenure in hard sciences in the three decades preceding the plaintiffs claim of denial of tenure. 2. Marital status discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. she was highly qualified and her teaching and scholarly record was comparable to other Vassar professors who had received tenure and promotion B. Evidence of three decades of female married professors who were denied tenure in hard sciences C. plaintiff left formal academia for eight years to raise a family 4. Vassars defense may be that married women with families may not be as dedicated to their academic career as non-family oriented professors. 5. The plaintiffs attorney can ask for the evidence from the other married women Vassar professors. They can also ask for the documentation comparing her to the other Vassar science professors who did get tenure. The defendants attorney can ask for the same evidence and documentation. They can also try to find other colleges who do not give tenure to women in

5 hard sciences as often as unmarried women or men. They may also ask about her activities during the eight years while raising a family and how she kept current in her profession. Texas Commission on Human Rights V. Presbyterian Childrens Home and Services Agency 1. Disparate treatment, because they told her they only hire Christians after she admitted in an interview to being Jewish. Religion is a BFOQ. 2. Religious discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. that she is qualified for the position B. that no matter what religion she is these children need good care and good homes C. it is operated by a Presbyterian Church shouldnt all employees be Presbyterian 4. That they only want to hire Christians and religion is a bona fide occupational qualification. 5. The plaintiffs attorney can ask what religion the other employees are. And why it makes a difference what religion you are when youre trying to care for children and find them homes. The defendants attorney can ask for the qualifications of the plaintiff, and to reinforce their religion is a BFOQ. Weeks V. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. 1. Disparate treatment, because they assumed she cannot lift 30 to 40 pounds and perform strenuous activity and the job went to a male. 2. Gender discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. that she was qualified for the job B. that she was able to handle strenuous activity and deliver 30 to 40 pounds C. that the job went to a male

6 4. That they didnt discriminate and the male applicant was more qualified. 5. The plaintiffs attorney can ask the defendant to prove that the male was more qualified and to show how they determined that Weeks was not as qualified to do the job. Did they ask her to lift 30 to 40 pounds and prove she could do it? The defendants attorney may ask for the plaintiff to prove she was qualified. They may ask to see record of previous job she held and did she perform strenuous activity in any of those positions. Ginter, et al V. Hooters, Inc. et al 1. Disparate treatment, because Hooters as its name implies would make one assume they hire females and may be a BFOQ. 2. Gender discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. they were experienced servers B. they were willing to work at Hooters C. they were willing to do host or cashier work D. the policy implemented by the defendants excluded males in those positions 4. that they had a policy that they only hire female servers, and probably never expected males would want to work there given the name and the environment, and gender is a bona fide occupational qualification 5. The plaintiffs attorney could ask to see the policy, to see how many males have applied in last six months to one year. They may ask why male applicants arent allowed to host or cashier. They may also try to prove that using male servers might increase their female customer base. The defendants attorney may add ask why these males want to work here. They may ask the male applicants if they knew what the uniform looks like and that it was made for women. They

7 may ask if the male applicants knew that Hooters had a tendency to hire young attractive females. They may also ask the male applicants if they knew the customer base of Hooters are men who actually come there to see these barely dressed young women. Furnco Construction Corp. V. Waters, et al 1. If it is company policy not to hire those who applied at the gate it may be disparate impact. If its choice not to hire at the gate then its disparate treatment. I would have to lean more toward disparate treatment, because if the supervisors are in charge of hiring they most likely hire those who they know or who others recommend to them. 2. Racial discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. the applicants were fully qualified, but minority B. it is not fair to continue to hire only bricklayers the supervisors know or those who are recommended to them. This does not give all bricklayers an equal chance of working, especially minorities who may come to the gate C. the company seems to assume the costly incompetent work is from the minorities, and this should not be implied 4. Their defense could be that they do have 20% black bricklayers out of the labor market with 5.7% black bricklayers. Also, they could discuss their hiring policy and who they feel is doing the incompetent work and when it was done. They made me to prove when the incompetent work was done and who was working at the time. 5. The plaintiffs attorney could ask for evidence that they were trying to apply for jobs and were turned away. They may ask for proof that the jobs were filled by nonminority bricklayers. They may ask for proof that Furnco does in fact employ 20% black bricklayers. The defendants

8 attorney can ask to defend their record, but still try to hire more black bricklayers. They should also ask to explain who they feel is doing the incompetent work. It would be wrong to assume that the minority bricklayers are doing the poor work, or it is happening when they hire from the gate. They may ask what the possibility is that the incompetent work is being done by nonunion workers or apprentices. Acanfora V. Board of Education of Montgomery County 1. Disparate treatment, because he was let go after admitting he was a homosexual. The school board stated the controversy was disruptive, do to him making the admission the way he did. 2. Sexual orientation discrimination 3. The Prima Facie case is that: A. that he was qualified schoolteacher B. it was his right to admit his sexual orientation when and how he wanted C. he was fired for being homosexual and not that the controversy was disruptive 4. That he was not fired for being homosexual, but the way in which he decided to divulge the information was a very public forum, and was controversial and disruptive. 5. The plaintiffs attorney could ask for his employment record to prove he was a good and qualified teacher. They may ask for proof that he was not trying to be disruptive or controversial but wanted to declare his sexual orientation publicly. The defendants attorney could ask for the same proof but could declare that the forum he chose to make this announcement was controversial and disruptive.