week 8 final project

Case Reviews

Garcia v. Spun Steak Co.

998 F.2d 1480 (9th Cor. 1993)

Facts

Garcia works in the line of production at Spun Steak Co. The Company allegedly enacted a rule requiring all staff members to use English to converse while at work solely. The rule got adopted after some workers complained of being insulted by others using their primary language. Garcia and a colleague, who are bilingual, received warnings from the Company against speaking Spanish when working. The Company separated them from working together for eight weeks. Garcia resulted in filing charges with the EEOC and accused the Company of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act on employees' privileges (Bennett-Alexander, 1998). The court ruled against the Company. Spun Steak Co. later appealed and gained a court ruling in their favor after finding them innocent of the accusations.

Issue

By conforming to a one-language 'English' speaking policy, did Spun Steak Company violate Title VII of the Constitution?

Applicable Laws

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 703(a) 1, "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual concerning his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's . . . national origin" (Bennett-Alexander, 1998, p. 324). Moreover, Title VII does not secure an employee's ability to showcase their culture at their working places. The Law is more involved with the unequal management of workers and does not involve other considerable privileges (Bennett-Alexander, 1998, p. 330).

Holding

The appellate court approved of Spun Steak Co. appeal against the EEOC district court ruling that the Company violated Title VII. The court suggested that it is difficult to justify that one's primary language links in any way to a person's identity. Therefore, the complainant could not prove his accusations regarding the Company's denial of employees' rights to cultural expression. The court further explained that it does not state anywhere that an employer should allow workers to assert their cultural identities while working. Following the complaint that the defendant imposed a disparate impact on the workers by not allowing them to speak their native language and giving the English speakers the privilege, the court suggested that the ability to converse. At the same time, working is a privilege granted by employers. It is, therefore, the duty of the employee to adhere to the set rules of the employers and enjoy whatever privilege one receives (Bennett-Alexander, 1998). Moreover, the English policy proved no adverse impact on the worker who was a non-English speaker as she testified that the rule did not bother her since she preferred not to hold talks while working.

In conclusion, the court found the complainant unable to prove a first sight argument following his claims; therefore, the defendant proved innocent of the Title VII violation accusations. The court hence ruled in the defendant's favor.

Reasoning

Adopting an English-only policy in an organization does not impact any harassment on the working surrounding to non-English speakers

Conclusion

Spun Steak Co. received a fair judgment after appealing the case. The English-only rule served as a decision of the Company in which the employees were to adhere to since it held no adverse impacts on them. Employees should, therefore, get to know their rights and privileges, as stated by the Constitution, to avoid misunderstandings in working.

Wedow v. City of Kansas City, Missouri

442 F.3d 441 (8th Cor. 2006)

Facts

Ms. Wedow is a female firefighter in Kansas City. According to her, the male employees often receive two sets of working attires while the females never receive well-fitting uniforms. She states that this put the female firefighters at risk for several years. Moreover, the female facilities have, for a long time, been in poor condition, contrary to that of the male staff members. The plaintiff, therefore, accused the fire department of discriminating against the female firefighters and risking their safety during working (Bennett-Alexander, 1998). The court concluded that the case presented an issue of gender discrimination and affirmed Ms. Wedow’s accusations.

Issue

Did the fire department discriminate against the female firefighters and risk their safety during working?

Applicable Laws

It is unlawful, according to the Rights of employees under the 5th and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, to discriminate staff members by gender concerning the condition of employment (Bennett-Alexander, 1998, p. 376). The Law also warns employers against denying "any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affecting his status as an employee” on account of gender (Bennett-Alexander, 1998, p.390).

Holding

In this case, the court ruled that the fire department discriminated against the employees on a gender basis. The Company proved guilty of issuing the female employees, Ms. Wedow and her colleague, oversized male firefighting uniforms. It is necessary to provide fitting attire to all employees as it ensures protection from injuries, smoke as well as heat during a fire. The outcome of the discrimination presented injuries on the female staff; it also impacted negatively on their job performance. Even though at some point the complainant and her colleague received female clothing, Kline only got one pair while the male firefighters received two. The complainant also managed to prove that there were no restrooms, showers, and changing room facilities for the female firefighters. In a further assessment of the situation, the court found it to be true that the funds allocated to cater to the female employees got instead utilized for station upgrading (Bennett-Alexander, 1998). The defendant presented an argument opposing the situation as discriminatory, saying that it is instead an inconvenience but not an adverse employment action. The court, however, concluded this was a gender-based case. It then ruled in favor of Ms. Wedow.

Reasoning

It is unfair that the firefighting department managed to issue the male employees with uniforms regularly, yet the female firefighters struggled for many years with an improper set of uniforms. It is also discriminatory that despite the risk involved in the job description, female workers did not receive necessary facilities such as changing rooms and showers. Moreover, the department went against Title VII of the Constitution regarding employee's Rights.

Conclusion

It is illegal for employers to deprive employees of opportunities based on gender differences. In the above case, the complainant, Wedow, received justice after the court's ruling in her favor. Female workers have equal rights as their male counterparts hence deserve the same treatment in all working departments.

Chalmers v. Tulon Company of Richmond

101 F.3d 1012 (4th Cor. 1996)

Facts

Chalmer is a supervisor working in Tulon Company of Richmond. The Company allegedly terminated her employment following her acts of sending employees disturbing letters relating to their personal as well as spiritual lives. One of the workers got the message while at home, she complained the letter was upsetting. The other message was received by an employee's wife, who became deeply agitated as she interpreted the message implied her husband had a liaison. LaMantia, the husband, later informed the Company administrator that Chalmer's letter caused him personal anguish and significant harm to his marriage. Chalmer sued Tulon Company accusing it of Spiritual prejudice. She also argued that the defendant failed to accommodate her after her termination (Bennett-Alexander, 1998). The court ruled that employers hold no accountabilities of providing terminated employees' unacceptable religious practices.

Issue

Did Tulon Company religiously discriminate Chalmer after terminating her employment without accommodating her after sending upsetting letters to her coworkers?

Applicable Laws

According to Title VII of the civil rights act regarding employee's Rights against religious discrimination, “…it is an unlawful employment practice…to discriminate against concerning compensation or condition …because of an individual's religion…" (Bennett-Alexander, 1998, p.532). Moreover, the Law suggests that an employee's religious-based activity should not gain accommodation if doing so presents excellent problems for the employer (Bennett-Alexander, 1998, p. 548).

Holding

The court resolved the above case after assessing several issues. It suggested that, in cases dealing with religion in a working environment, employees can quickly provide allegations with or without adequate evidence that other workers receive favorable treatment (Bennett-Alexander, 1998). Therefore, employers ought to try to make agreements of conduct with the employees before any religious motivation. The court also sought evidence showcasing the reason for the complainant’s termination and found that Chalmer got fired for writing upsetting personal letters to her coworkers. The court further assessed whether this was a first-hand case of religious accommodation using three prima facie tests. Chalmer qualified to satisfy the first and third elements in the first-hand case. However, her accommodation claim failed due to her inability to appease the second prima facie test element. The court ruled out her claim that she informed her employer that her spiritual practices would lead her to conduct an act of setting upsetting letters to her colleagues.

The court explained that whether an employer is aware of his employee’s spiritual stand, it does not imply he is prepared to receive and embrace any unusual conduct from the employee (Bennett-Alexander, 1998). The court, therefore, ruled out her claim of a lesser punishment from the Company, as a rule, exists in the Constitution that encourages lesser sentence. The final ruling went in favor of Tulon Company.

Reasoning

Chalmer never gave the Company any chance to solicit a fair accommodation concerning her spiritual practices. Moreover, her actions proved intolerable to employers hence not one to accommodate even on notice. The court generally agreed that she failed on her part to disclose to the defendant that her beliefs would lead her to inconvenience the peace of her coworkers.

Conclusion

The judge ruled in favor of the defendant since the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence suggesting her prior request for accommodation concerning her conduct of writing upsetting personal letters to her colleagues. It is essential to always maintain a pleasant working environment for employees. Therefore, an employee's religious-based activity should not gain accommodation if doing so presents problems for the employer.

Reference

Bennett-Alexander, D. D. (1998). Employment law for business. Irwin, McGraw-Hill.