Attached word document contains 3 case studies
– need 2 PPT slides w/ Speaker notes for EACH Case
total slides 6 with SPEAKER NOTES!!
Requirements for PPT Slides:
Presentation is clear, concise, professional, and easy to follow along with. Slides, if used, are not busy. Use of extraneous graphics/clip art is minimal. Presentation template does not distract from information being presented. Creativity is a plus in the quality of the presentation.
The presentation contains well rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice.
Presentation contains no spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors, graphics and charts are clear and legible. Writing quality is excellent
Running Head: COURSE PRJOECT
Introduction – Case 1
Chapter Selected by the Group: Chapter 2
Citation: Case 5: Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Company 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. Dallas Div. 1981)
Identify Plaintiff and the Defendant: Gregory R. Wilson, Plaintiff; Southwest Airlines Company, Defendant
Plaintiff “Gregory Wilson and the class of over 100 make job applicants he represents have challenged Airline’s open refusal to hire males as a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (Justia.com, 1981). Southwest Airlines, defendant, only hired women for flight attendants and ticket agents to help with their public image of love as well as considering females BFOQ. Southwest Airlines stated that their weight and height policies would be a huge impact on the male applicants. The airlines BFOQ exclusion to Title VII on gender discrimination justified their decision to hire only females and not males.
The central question will be on the decisions reached for the settlement on a single-gender for the top jobs in the company. Do the job description and particulars require that the workers are only females, and if so, where is the necessity of the situation for the discrimination? Could it mean that if the other gender took the role, then the whole business could have gone down? Is femininity a BFOQ?
Explain the applicable law(s).
Some of the applicable laws governing gender and employment include the civil rights act of 1964. “Federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information” (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019).
The court rejected Southwest Arline’s bona fide occupational qualification for its defense on the female recruitment in its operations. The Texas District Court held that Wilson won the case due to Southwest Airline’s essence was transporting passengers and the “love in the sky” advertisements were not central rough and did not meet the primary function of the business (Justia.com, 1981).
The court remained firm and up hauled the law to the latter. The southwest airline was accused of having broken the rule of bona fide occupational qualification. The court reasoned that the sex image of the females was giving to the company for more customer attraction was for the customer’s preferences and choices for the company. And there was the involvement of stereotyping of the sexes for the company. The court also realized that sex was used in the attraction of customers and specifically the opposite sex. Therefore, the company was to find the best way for running its operations with both genders.
In conclusion, laws set to govern business operations will remain laws and should be adhered to by all. Southwest Airlines was wrong in thinking that they are focusing on their business on “LUV”. The airlines were also breaking the bona fide occupational qualification law. The court stood firm in disputing the wrong move through going against the discriminative behavior the organization was implementing. The court denied using a particular gender as a need but not a necessity for the blockage of another gender. I agree with the United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division’s ruling because no one should be discriminated due to their gender. Men and women should be treated equally, hence gender equality. No man/women should be mistreated or discriminated against on the basis of their gender (Abrams, 1989).
Introduction: CASE 2
Chapter Selected by the Group: Chapter 10 | Case 6
Case Citation: Buonanno v. AT&T Broadband, LLC 313 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Colo. 2004)
Plaintiff and Defendant: Albert Buonanno, Plaintiff; AT&T Broadband, Defendant
Facts For Plaintiff and Defendant:
Albert Buonanno, the plaintiff, was employed at AT&T for roughly two years and had two positions as well as performing his work as required without any disciplinary actions. When he was terminated his supervisor was Jonathan Dunn and Buonanno is a devoted Christian who lives his life according to the Holy Scriptures of the Bible. Buonanno treated others as he would want to be treated, as it is taught in the Bible. His religious beliefs do not allow him to sign his employer AT&T’s “Diversity Policy ” which he is agreeing to “abide by” such language, which goes against his own religious beliefs (Bennett-Alexander, 2019).
The defendant AT&T is an employer subject to Title VII and discharged Albert Buonanno due to not signing the diversity policy the company has put in place which seems to have gone too far.
The primary question on which the District Court of Colorado based their decision was the “challenged language”(Justia.com). The challenged language in question is the third sentence in the second paragraph of AT&T’s Diversity Policy which read “Each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the difference among all of us” (Bennett-Alexander, 2019). Was the law followed in the termination of Buonanno’s employment and was he wrongfully terminated? Was there discrimination in the firing of the plaintiff?
Explain the applicable law(s).
To establish a prima facie case that Title VII has been violated, the employee must demonstrate that the employer impermissibly used religion in making its employment decision (Bennett-Alexander, p 520, 2019)”.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion, or lack of religious beliefs, in hiring, terminating, or any other terms and conditions of employment. “
The court held that the judgment was made in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant and that the plaintiff is entitled to damages. The plaintiff was able to establish two different theories of religious discrimination: direct religious discrimination and failure to accommodate. The court reasoned that the employer AT&T failed to discuss the matter with the employee when he notified the employer about his issues, nor did the defendant try to explain the challenged language to the plaintiff to try and accommodate his religious beliefs, before terminating him.
The plaintiff is entitled to damages. An example of direct religious discrimination is presented in the Shapolia v. Los Alamos National Laboratory, 992 F.2d 1033 (10th Cir. 1993). The example of failure to accommodate is presented in Thomas V. national association of letter carriers, 225 F.3d 1149, 1155 (10th Cir. 2000)
In conclusion, it is therefore right to compensate the employee for damages incurred. The company terminated his employment and, in that regard, he remained unemployed for four months. I agree with the judgment for the plaintiff as he was discriminated against based on his religious beliefs and therefore this prevents other employers from taking advantage of employees based on their religious beliefs. It is also important to note that the employee’s compensation will be determined by how much damage was caused to him.
Introduction – Case 3
Chapter Selected by the Group: Chapter 14 | Case 2
Citation: Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics, Inc. 28 F. Supp. 3d 786 (N.D. Ind. 2014)
Identify Plaintiff and the Defendant: Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics
Plaintiff and Defendant Facts
Facts For Plaintiff and Defendant:
In his amended complaint, Mr Shoun alleges that he fell, injuring his shoulder in March 2012 while working at Best Performed Plastics. He spent a few months away while recovering and Ms Steward prepared his accident report for insurance purposes. According to Mr Shoun, Ms Stewart monitored him between March and August 2012 so that she can prepare an actual report. The plaintiff reports that the company is expected to treat his medical information with the utmost confidentiality.
Mr Shoun, however, reports that in February 2013, Ms Stewart, who monitored his condition, posted on Facebook, ridiculing him of how he has stated for 11 months without resuming duty, yet Jimmy resumed duty one month after experiencing a five-way heart bypass. Mr Shoun claims that the post was deliberate and intends to disclose his medical condition against the ADA law. He also claims that the post would block him from potential employers because Ms Stewart’s page is available to the business community. Therefore, Mr Shoun moves to court seeking compensation that includes attorney fees, punitive damages, and pre-judgement interest.
On their part, Best Formed Plastics dismisses the complaint on the ground that the organization cannot be held responsible for confidentiality violation because Mr. Shoun disclosed the medical information voluntarily. The company also claims that Mr Shoun did not show tangible harm that resulted from the violation.
Does the confidentiality provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) hold in a case where disclosure of the information is voluntary between employer and employee?
Explain the applicable law(s).
The law that will be applied here is section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act that makes employers liable for disclosing information to third parties, which was disclosed in the circumstances surrounding the employee health program available for the employees. In this case, the confidential information was collected through employment-related health monitoring that leads to a substantial injury on the part of the plaintiff.
The court granted renewal of the motion and denied the motion that sought to dismiss the complaint. The rationale for the holding was that Mr Shoun presented sufficient evidence to prove that the Facebook post was a violation of the ADA confidentiality provisions. In this case, the plaintiff volunteered the information to the employer, so the issue of voluntary disclosure cannot justify dismissal. Instead, the provisions of the ADA are on confidentiality holds, and the court establishes that what Mr Shoun set forth is enough to disqualify the dismissal motion.
The court decides to renew the motion and denies dismissal of the complaint because the ADA confidentiality provisions apply in this case. I agree with the court’s decision because it was wrong for Ms Stewart to go ahead publishing about Mr Shoun’s medical condition. While the plaintiff may have disclosed the information voluntarily, it was for insurance purposes and based on the employer-employee relationship. Ms Stewarts published the information outside the organizational context, making the information public.