Details of this Paper

Does Peterson have a valid claim of religious

Description

solution


Question

Does Peterson have a valid claim of religious discrimination against HP? Do Peterson's gay coworkers have a claim against HP for Peterson's postings?;Attachment Preview;Legal Issues For Managers Chapter 13 Questions 1 Page 507 & 508.PDF;C HAPTER 1 3;C I V I L R IGHTS A ND E MPLOYMENT D ISCRIMINATION;507;receive small awards. The day after the class was certified;shares of W al-Mart's stock fell 1.8 percent on the New York;Stock Exchange. Wal-Mart has stated that it will fight the Ninth;Circuit's decision by a sking the full a ppellate court to order;a new hearing before a fifteen-judge panel and then appeal;to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Wal-Mart argues that;the ruling clashes w ith a w ave of recent decisions from other;federal courts. One major flaw, a ccording to W al-Mart, is the;court's conclusion that the c ompany may be d iscriminating;against w omen by letting its store managers use subjective;criteria for promotions and pay raises. Other courts have held;that a class-action suit is i nappropriate because such subjective;decisions l ead to diverse results. W al-Mart also argues t hat the;court discounted the company's analysis showing there was no;disparity between men and women at more t han 90 percent of;its stores. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, f inding t hat the p laintiffs' statistics and expert a nalyses, as well as declarations from;120 past and present employees, contained s ignificant proof of;a corporate policy of discrimination and supported plaintiffs;claims that f emale employees nationwide were subjected to a;common pattern and practice of d iscrimination.;trainees, and m ale managers frequently pinpointed men for;the m anagement track."206;According to records submitted to the district court, women;made up 65 percent of Wal-Mart's nonmanagement staff of;approximately 1.2 million employees in 2001, but only 33 percent of its managers and 14 percent of its store managers. In;addition, men at all levels were generally paid more. Stephanie;Odle, an assistant store manager in Riverside, California, was surprised to learn that a male assistant manager at the same store;was making approximately $25,000 per year more than she did.;When she confronted the district manager about the salary difference, he replied that the other "assistant manager has a family;and two children to support."207 Odle is a single mother.;Like the w omen of W all Street, the W al-Mart plaintiffs;assert that the W al-Mart culture "did not take them seriously;and included "trips to strip clubs for managers and clients."208;A store m anager t old one plaintiff: "Men are here to m ake a;career and w omen aren't. Retail is for housewives who just;need to earn extra money."209;With such'a large class, any settlement by W al-Mart could;cost the company billions of dollars, even if individual plaintiffs;206. Steven Greenhouse & Constance L. Hays, Wal-Mart Sex-Bias Suit;Given Class Action Status, N.Y. TIMES, June 23, 2004, at A l.;1. Id.;209. Bob Egelko, Sex Discrimination Cited at Wal-Mart, Women;Accuse Wal-Mart, Lawyers Seek OK for Class-Action Suit, S.F.;CHRON., available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi7fz/;c/a/2003/04/29/BU303648.DTL.;208. Greenhouse & Hays, supra note 206.;KEYWORDS AND PHRASES;disparate treatment;468;family responsibility discrimination;(FRD) 484;fetal-protection policies;.;-.;front pay;483;reasonable factor other than age;(RFOA) defense 488;sexual stereotyping;468;hostile environment harassment;major life activity;reasonable accommodation;(disability) 492;472;undue hardship;474;493;491;quid pro quo harassment;472;ONS ASTD CASE PROBLEMS;launched a workplace diverthat consisted of h anging posters e ntitled;Incrsity Is Our Strength." Each poster depicted an HP;employee above the caption "Black," ''Blonde," "Old,;Gay," or "Hispanic." In response to the "Gay" posters;employee Richard Peterson, a self-described "devout;Christian" who believes homosexual activities violate the;commandments in the Bible, posted two b iblical passages;U NIT i n;H UMAN RESOURCES I N THE LEGAL A ND REGULATORY E NVIRONMENT;n an overhead bio in his work cubicle. One stated: "If;lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman; them have committed an abomination, they shall;?e put to death: their blood shall be put upon them.;Leviticus 20:13.;direct supervisor removed the postings after;lined that they violated HP's policy prohibitwhich stated: "Any comments or conduct;to a person's race, gender, religion, disability;age, sexual orientation, or ethnic background that fail to;respect the dignity and feeling [sic] of the individual are;unacceptable.;Peterson informed management that HP's diver,impaign was an initiative to "target" heterosexual;and fundamentalist Christian employees by condoning;homosexuality. Peterson once again posted the verses;in his cubicle and stated that he would not remove them;unless HP removed the "Gay" posters. Peterson was subsequently terminated for insubordination. Does Peterson;have a valid claim of religious discrimination against HP?;Do Peterson's gay coworkers have a claim against HP for;Peterson's postings? [Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard, 358;FJd 599 (9tfi Cir. 2004).];2.;3.;In May 2003. Jennifer Willis, senior account manager;at Coca Cola Enterprises, called her supervisor and said;she was sick and u nable to come to work. She also told;him she was pregnant, but did not specify that she was;sick because of the pregnancy. When she called in the;next day, a Tuesday, to f ind out where she should report;to work, she was told that she needed a medical release.;She told her supervisor that she had a doctor's appointment on "Wednesday," which the supervisor assumed was;the next day. but the appointment was actually scheduled;for the following Wednesday. W illis had no further contact;with her employer until Thursday of the next week when;company officials arrived at her home to recover her company car. At that point, she contacted her employer and;was e ventually brought in for a meeting where she was;informed that she had been terminated for violating the;company's "No Call/No Show" policy. Under this policy;an employee absent from work for three consecutive;days w ithout n otifying the supervisor during that period;will be considered to have voluntarily resigned." Willis;filed a lawsuit in which she claimed that her termination;was discriminatory. Does Willis have a valid claim? How;should Coca Cola Enterprises respond? [Willis v. Coca;Cola Enterprises, Inc., 445 FJd 413 (5th Cir. 2006).];The EEOC filed a lawsuit against NBA-Alaska, a labor;union that represents teachers and other public school;employees, alleging that the union had created a sex-based;hostile work environment for three female eiupluyu;The female employees testified that repeated and i;-instances had occurred, during which Thomas Harvev *e;union's assistant executive director, sfaontnd. used;language, invaded their space (including an iaridral i;he grabbed a female employee from behind i. and made;threatening physical gestures. NEA-Alaska responded dm;Harvey treated male and female employees die same way;and t hat there was no evidence that Harvey made sexual;overtures or lewd comments, that he referred to women in;gender-specific terms, or that he imposed gender-specific;requirements on the female employees. In other words;Harvey treated male and f emale employees the same way.;How should NEA-Alaska respond? Who should prevail?;If you were Harvey's supervisor, what would you do?;[Christopher v. National Education Association, 422 F.3d;840 (9th Cir. 2005).];4.;Rosalie Cullen was forty-nine years old and had worked;as a manager of marketing administration for Olin Corporation for over twenty-five years. She was terminated in;February 1996 because, according to O lin, the company;was d ownsizing due to an economic downturn. Cullen;filed a suit against Olin under the ADEA, alleging that;she was fired due to her age. She presented evidence that;Doug Cahill, the president of the Winchester Division of;Olin, where C ullen worked, had remarked at a meeting;that some employees were "old fashioned" and that "older;people have trouble with change and that they were gonna;have to learn to go w ith the c hange or conform or they were;going to be out." In a ddition, she i ntroduced evidence that;after she was fired, all of her duties were taken over by;employees ranging in age from thirty-two to forty-three;years old. Olin argued t hat Cahill was so far removed from;the selection process that his comments did not motivate;the decision to discharge Cullen. Cullen argued that Cahill;was the person who decided that personnel cutbacks were;necessary, set the parameters for the layoffs, and reviewed;the v ice president's personnel decisions. Did Olin violate;the ADEA? [Cullen v. Olin Corp., 195 F.3d 317 (7th Cir.;1999), cert, denied, 529 U.S. 1020 (2000).];5.;Amaani Lyle applied for the position of writers' assistant for;Friends, a television show about the lives of y oung, sexually;active adults. During her interview, she was told that one of;the most important aspects of the job was taking very copious and detailed notes for the writers' meetings where story;lines, jokes, and dialogue were discussed. She was also told;that she must type incredibly fast. Four months after she was;hired, the Friends producers fired Lyle because she consistently missed very important story lines and jokes during the;writers' meetings and typed too slowly.

 

Paper#34260 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $27
SiteLock