Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act

...

based on her sex. As judge, I would rule in favor of Elnora Williams because she was discriminated against based on her sex. This is supposed by the superintendent that stated, “the school district believed that a ‘male image’ is necessary for a middle or secondary school principal.”

8. The legal statue that applies to this case is the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The issue in the case is whether or not Frank Poole was wrongfully treated after his employer found out that he suffered from two different diagnosis AIDS and pneumocystis carinii. If I were the judge of this case, I would rule in favor of the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff had two diagnoses, pneumocystis carinii and AIDS, these diseases are not contagious. The employer did not follow the proper procedures pertaining to employee with a disability.

9. The Lauren Hill rights of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The court must decide whether Hillbrook Manufacturing Company had supervisors that deliberately did not give her a raise because she is a female. I would rule in favor of the plaintiff based on the information received and compensate her with back pay for all the years she was discriminated against.

10. The legal statue here is the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The court must decide if Donna Skeen was discriminated against due to her age. As the judge, I would rule in favor of Donna Skeen. The dealership was a hostile work environment because she was being called names pertaining to her age.

11. The legal statue of this case is Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court must decide if Jerome Atwood rights were violated in verse discrimination. I would rule in favor of Jerome Atwood; the laws were designed to help minorities however it does not stop them from being terminated. The employer had unfair termination procedures.

12. The legal statue that applies to this case in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court must decide if Herbert Fox was terminated due to his illness and attendance violations. I would rule in favor of the company. It is the responsibility of the employee to communicate if he was not returning to work. Under certain laws, the employee must submit a certification to return to work.

13. The legal statue of this case is Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964. The court must decide if Lia Lees’ rights were violated due to her national origin. As the judge, I would rule in favor of the company. They made their decision based on the needs of the business.

14. The legal statue in this case is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court must decide if Margaret Reynolds rights were violated due to her appearance. As judge, I would rule in favor of the company. They did not discriminate against the employee based on she did not fit the needs of the company at that time.

15. The legal statue here is the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The court must decide if his employee’ rights were violated based on his religion which lead to harassment. The company did not violate any laws because they provided him with reasonable accommodations to pray. The employees on the other hand created a hostile work environment with the repeated name calling.

c. Exercise 19 (pg. 62)

1. The issue is whether or not Betty Thomas’s ADA rights were violated by the company stating that they will not hire her due to her weight. In this case, the company unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Thomas for her weight gain. The company also did not want to hire her because of the perception that overweight individuals have higher absenteeism. Even though, she was cleared through a physical without any job restrictions.

2. The issue is if Diane asked for reasonable accommodations from her employer due to her having PTSD post-traumatic stress. As a member of the jury, I would rule in favor of Diane. The accommodations that were requested were needed in order for her to complete her daily task. Because the employer’s failure to accommodate, the employer did discriminate unlawfully because of this. Reasonable accommodations could have taken place.

3. The court must decide on reasonable accommodation for having carpal tunnel syndrome for Joan. If I was on the jury, I would decide in favor of Joan. Carpal Tunnel is a disability worth accommodating because it affects employee job performance.

4. The issue is whether or not Jane’s condition is an actual disability that resulted in her being wrongfully discriminated against. The company released Jane due to safety reasons. It is my opinion that the company acted unlawfully towards Jane. Jane has a disability that the company would not be able to accommodate.

5. The company did not act unlawfully in terminating John because he violated the company’s policy of not bringing a hand gun to the work place. The company made an effect to protect their employees from an unstable employee violating the policies and procedures of the company.