LAW 531 Week 5
Discrimination Scenario Simulation
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the most noteworthy act of its kind, which emerged directly from the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Title VII of the act states that it is illegal for employers, employment agencies, and labor unions to discriminate in respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges in employment by hiring individual based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin (Cheeseman, 2013). Discrimination was at the forefront of everyone’s mind during the 60s and 70s and many people believe that it has been eliminated it all together, but discrimination is still alive and thriving in our society in the work especially in the workplaces. The paper examines various scenarios of discrimination in workplace as they relate to Title VII reasoning.
Discrimination exists in this scenario because “disparate-impact discrimination occurs when an employer discriminates against an entire protected class.” (Cheeseman, 2013, para.6, p.546). He has a prima facie case of illegal discrimination. The black firefighter is in a protected class because of is race. The black firefighter was singled out to take his bed with him when he transferred from one fire station to next because the fire chief, who was white, told him that the white firefighters working other shifts would not want to use the bed that the black firefighter used. Circumstances exist that support an inference of discrimination. The fire chief was directly targeting the black firefighter and never once thought that he might not want to sleep on the white firefighter’s bed. “Regardless of subjective bias or invidious prejudice, Title VII requires that employment decisions be fair in effect as well as in form and purpose” (Shih-Hsueh & Kleiner, 1998, para.3). Personnel of a certain race cannot be secluded from other workers or from clients, nor may their race be used to give them to certain jobs or geographical locations. If a black fire chief was to tell a Caucasian firefighter to take his bed with him when he moved stations and the station was predominately Caucasian then the perception would be perceived as the black fire chief acting in a discriminatory way just as in the scenario.
After examining the scenario, there is some gender discrimination which led to the male employee getting the promotion. The female was told that the job was given to the male because he is a family man that could use the money, but is that a good enough reason
Week Five IRAC Brief
This is an IRAC brief on Linda Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. As such, the paper outlines the issues, rules, analysis, and conclusions reached by the court by delving into the legal principles used to decide the case. Finally, based on the examinations of the case, this paper will review how those principles can be applied in similar situations or the business context. Understanding the laws, case findings, and the applications used in litigation will allow managers how to conform or re-strategize daily business practices.
Case: Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc., 819 A.2d 703, 175 Vt. 1 (2002).
In the case of Linda Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. the plaintiff is trying to sue Champion Jogbra, Inc. for wrongful termination. The plaintiff claims promissory estoppel, stating Champion Jogbra, Inc. employment manual conflicts with the company’s daily or past practices, therefore, altering her at-will hiring status. Specifically, citing: 1) that the manual’s claim that it is a general guideline, and not a contract, opposed Jogbra’s “Corrective Action Procedure,” 2) the conditions or actions relating to her promotion, and then her premature dismissal.
Issue: Has there been a breach in contract in the case of Linda Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc.? Was there a breach of contract and claim for wrongful termination under the notions for promissory estoppel? Does the doctrine of “at-will” employment apply, or are the terms in Jogbra employment manual ambiguous?
Under the interpretations of contract law, Champion Jogbra is guilty of a breach of contract if the company created an implied contract in the handbook, and then terminated an employee, like Linda Dillon, without just cause or following the proper procedures. The company, Policy No. 720, requires managers to use an elaborate system that governs employee discipline and discharge, and is to be carried out “in a fair and consistent manner.” See Dillon v. Champion Jogbra Inc., 819 A.2d 705 (2002). Any inconsistency in terms makes Champion Jogbra’s disclaimer (which is found at the beginning of the employee manual) ambiguous, producing vagueness in an employee’s status and employment practices. All of which, can send mixed signals and prove to be unreliable with an at-will service affiliation. “Employers are advised that employee handbooks, especially when they contain ambiguous language, may be viewed as enforceable agreements” (Hatch & Kobata, 2003, para 4). Traditionally, an “at- will” establishment can terminate personnel for just cause or no reason.
Furthermore, Dillon appeals on the basis of promissory estoppel because of Champion