Jane Jones is pursuing a possible legal claim against us for discrimination, after

not receiving the job two months ago. It is for employment discrimination in violation of

Title VII. Title VII prohibits job discrimination against employees, applicants, and union

members on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion and gender at any stage of

employment. Jane Jones would be considered an applicant and does fall in this

category.

With the business growing, we do fall in to Title VII. Before an employee can file

a lawsuit, they have to file with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they

monitor compliance with us. They can investigate and attempt to obtain both parties to

voluntary consent to an out of court settlement. If this cannot be done, they will file a

formal law suit against the employer on behalf of the employee. However, we have to

keep in mind the EEOC does not investigate every case, only those that effect multiple

employees or those cases of firing. I do not think the EEOC will work with Jane on this

one.

There are two types of cases disparate treatment discrimination and disparate

impact discrimination. There is intentional and unintentional discrimination as well.

Intentional discrimination by an employer against an employee is known as disparate

treatment discrimination. This is typically hard to prove, which makes the plaintiff show

all of the following in these cases, is a member of a protected class, applied and was

qualified for the job in question, was rejected by the employer, and the employer
continued to seek applicants for the position or filled the position with a person not in

that protected class. If they can make these out, they are prima facie case, which is to a

fact that is resumed to be true unless contradicted with evidence. Disparate impact

discrimination occurs when a protected group of people is adversely affected by an

employers’ practice, procedures or test even though they do not appear to be

discriminatory. The have to show that the employer’s practice, procedures or test are

effectively discriminatory. We would have to prove that these were justified. There is

unintentional discrimination, which is not meaningfully discriminating, such as prices

and education requirements could have impact on a protected class. The pool of

applicants can prove a dispute impact by comparing the employer’s workforce to the

pool of qualified individual available in the local labor market. The applicant has to show

that as a result of educational requirements, or hiring procedures, the percentage of

non-whites, women, or members of other protected classes in the employer’s workforce

does not reflect the percentage of that group in the pool of qualified applicants. Rate of

hiring can be also be a topic to prove disparate impact discrimination by comparing the

employer’s selection rates of members and non-members of a protected class, such as

whites, non-whites, women and men.

You also have discrimination based on race, color and national origin. This

prohibits employers to discriminate against employees or applicants on basis of race,

color, or national origin. To avoid liability the employer must show that its standards and

policies, have substitutional, demonstrable relation to realistic qualifications for the job in

question. This does work both ways such as discrimination against members of a
majority group as well. Keep in mind, there is also discrimination based on religion as

well, this protects against the discrimination of one’s religion. Then discrimination based

on one’s gender, to have this lawsuit they must show it was a determining factor for the

position at hand. Not hiring due to pregnancy is another topic as well. There is many

types of discrimination we have to be careful of.

Constructive discharge complaints involve unlawful discrimination in decisions to

hire or fire employees. This can occur even when an employee voluntarily leaves. They

have to feel in such working conditions, that are intolerable that a reasonable person in

the employees’ position would feel compelled to quit. This type of discharge can be

established in any type of discrimination under Title VII.

Liability to us as the employer under Title VII can be hard, and if they can

successfully prove that an unlawful discrimination occurred, they could be awarded in

back pay, reinstatement, promotions and damages. The first step for defense for us with

this is to make sure we assert that the plaintiff failed to meet his or her initial burden of

proving discrimination occurred. If she succeeds in proving discrimination then this will

shift us justifying this, such as if it was a business necessity, bone fide occupational

qualification or seniority system. Business necessity, unintentional discrimination by

asserting that a practice has discriminatory effect, such as having to speak more than

one language. This would not be something we could use for our company Bona fide

occupational qualification applies when discriminating against a protected class, for a

particular trait. If you worked at an women’s clothing store like Victoria Secrets, that’s a
legitimate reason. This would not be something we can use either. Seniority system,

this is promoting within, having more years within the company. This is something we

can use, if the person that was hired for the position was promoted within. To avoid this

in the future we need to make sure when announcing a job applicant on why they are

not receiving a position is clear detailed. We will need to state a reason why such as

qualifications, or it was filled internally etc., in order to make sure a law suit cannot be

file against us in the future.

When thinking what case can be brought upon us by Jane Jones, who did we

hire instead, and why? This will help us get a head start on proving that the applicant

chosen was the correct choose and not because of discrimination. I think that she would

choose the disparate treatment discrimination, which is hard to prove. She’s going to

have to meet as mention above, member of a protect class, applied and was qualified

for the job in question, rejected by the employer and we continued to seek applicants for

the position or filled the position with a person not in the protected class. This would

move us to the burden shifting procedure where we have to articulate a legal reason for

not hiring Jane Jones. Which I think we can prove and justify why. The only choose she

would have been to show our reason is a pretext, which is not the true reason. Then

prove the discriminatory reason if that’s what Jane believes. There is a lot of topics that

she can think why we did this as talked about; however, I do not think one would reflect

to her case. As a newer company, it is hard to prove we have the workers that are best

fit as we grow, we will be more established and have more guidelines in our protection.