National Origin Pg 10 Discrimination example essay topic

Issue 1. Did ABC advertising discriminate against Jean on the basis of sex when they failed to promote her? 2. Did ABC discriminate against Jean because of her religious beliefs and practices? 3. Did ABC discriminate against Jean because of her national origin?

Brief Answers 1. Ms. Riyadh has not proved enough evidence to conclude that ABC discriminated against her because of her sex. 2. Yes, Ms. Riyadh has some strong evidence that a reasonable jury might conclude that she has been discriminated against because of her religious beliefs. 3.

No, Ms. Riyadh hasn't any proof of being discriminated against because of her national origin. Pg 3 Statement of Facts Ms. Riyadh has been employed as a account executive by ABC Advertising since 1978. ABC Advertising is a national marketing and advertising firm specializing in domestic and international advertising. She was hired by ABC after receiving her M.B. With honors from the University of Michigan.

While being employed by this company she has won three national awards. Ms. Riyadh feels that ABC has illegally discriminated against her. She alleges that it is company practice to promote employees from within. She states that each years he has received "outstanding performance" evaluation ratings since she has been employed there ABC has never given her a promotion and has repeat ly pasted her over for any. Ms. Riyadh claims that all the male employees hired between 1978 and 1988 in same classification as she is have received a promotion from one to four times, and they also earn higher salaries. None of these employees have won any awards and are marginal employees.

Ms. Riyadh says only three women have been promoted since she was hired, but men do outnumber women in all positions. At a preliminary inquiry ABC's response to Ms. Riyadh's allegations were that she was not promoted because she doesn't "fit the image" that is right for the higher positions. They claim that the higher positions have high visibility, require extensive travel and have increased client contact which include presentations before corporate and professional groups. Although ABC states that Ms. Riyadh is a good employee they do Pg 4 not believe that she is "qualified" to represent them in certain capacities.

They argue that Jean is a plain woman; she refuses to wear make-up nor adornments of any kind. She is also very religious and takes a daily "prayer and meditation" during her lunch breaks. Her religious beliefs prohibit certain types of "fraternizing" such as drinking alcoholic beverages and eating certain types of foods. ABC argues that it is essential that higher administrative employees project a polished appearance and engage in social and frater-na activities in order to obtain and conduct business. Ms. Riyadh feels that ABC discriminated against her because she is a woman and because she is of Indian ancestry and an adherent to Islam.

She feels none of these factors interfere with her ability to perform at a higher position. Ms. Riyadh also claims that when she was hired by ABC she was informed that if she did a good job that she could be expected to be promoted to account vice president within two years. Analysis Sex Discrimination Sex discrimination is being discriminated against based on sex. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it is unlawful to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of his / her sex in regard to hiring, termination, promotion, compensation, job training or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.

Title VII also prohibits employment decisions bases on stereotypes and Pg 5 assumptions about abilities, traits, or the performance of the individuals on the basis of job sex. Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination and neutral job policies that disproportionately exclude individuals on the basis of sex that are not job related The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that the case of failure to promote under Title VII shall follow the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. (McDonnell Douglas vs. Green, 411 U.S. 792,802, 93 S. Ct. 1871, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Under this framework a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing (1) she belongs to a protected category (2) that she applied for and was qualified for the position at issue; (3) that she was not hired for that position; (4) under circumstances that gives rise to an inference of discrimination such as might occur when the position is filled by a person not of the protected class.

Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its decision, the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff, who must show that the reason's given by the employer were merely pretext. In Shesko vs. City of Coatesville (324 F. Supp. 2d 643; 2004 U.S. Dist.) Rita Shesko was able to prove that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex. She took an examination and her score was ranked second of the four eligible candidates for the position.

Only the first and fourth ranking candidates were promoted. Mrs. Shesko was the only female police officer in the City of Coatesville Police Department. In Desert Palace, Inc vs. Costa (539 U.S. 90; S. Ct. 2148; 156 L. Pg 6 Ed. 2d 84; 2003 U. S) Employee Catharina Costa was the only female warehouse worker and heavy equipment operator.

She was able to prove all the elements of sex discrimination. She was singled out, she received harsher discipline than men of the same conduct, supervisors "frequently used or tolerated" sex based slurs against her. Ms. Riyadh claims that the male employees of the same classification as her have been promoted from one to four times and earn a significantly higher salaries. Only three women have been promoted since she has worked with ABC but points out that men greatly out number the women.

Ms. Riyadh has not shown enough evidence to prove a prima facie case. She can prove that she is a woman. She was qualified for the position with the outstanding evaluation, she has a M.B. A and was a good employee. She also can prove that she was not hired for the position.

But it is not mentioned that someone else who is not protected by the class was hired nor is it specific how many men out number the women. There is no evidence of intentional discrimination such as sex based slurs ts. See Adams vs. Corporate Realty Services, Inc (190 F. Supp. 2d 272; 2002 U.S. Dist.) Religious Discrimination Religious discrimination is being discriminated against because of your religion or your religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employ-ers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, Pg 7 and other terms of conditions of employment. Under Title VII employers or applicants less-or-more favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices.

Employers may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices. Employers must reasonably accommodate employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose hardship on the employer. In order to make out a prima facie case for a religiously hostile work environment under Title VII the plaintiff must prove five elements, (1) employee suffered intent-iona l discrimination because of religion, (2) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff, (3) the discrimination was pervasive and regular, (4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person of the same religion in that position, (5) the existence of respondent superior liability. A plaintiff also may establish a claim under Title VII through direct evidence of discrimination or through circumstantial evidence that created a inference of discrimination.

Ms. Riyadh feels that she was not promoted because of her religious beliefs, despite her good performance evaluations and ABC admitting that she was a good employee they failed to give her a promotion. ABC argues that Ms. Riyadh is a plain women who refuses to wear make-up or adornments of any kind and she is a very religious person who takes a daily "prayer and mediation" break during her lunch break. Her religious beliefs prohibit her from drinking alcoholic beverages and eating certain Pg 8 types of foods. ABC states Jean is not qualified to represent their company that it is essential that high administrative employees project a polished appearance and engage in social and fraternal activities in order to obtain and conduct business. Jean arguers that ABC refused to accommodate her religious beliefs because they wanted her to dress and fraternize in a manner contrary to her beliefs in order to qualify for a promotion.

As in Tucker vs. Reno Attorney General of the United States (205 F. Supp. 2d 1169; 2002) Counselor contended that he was qualified to be a chaplain but the attorney general did not hire him because of his religion. In Abramson vs. William Paterson College of New Jersey (260 F. 3d 265; 2001 U.S. App.) The employee was discriminated against as a Orthodox Jew because of her beliefs and practices. The employee was able to prove a prima facie case of a hostile work environment. Ms. Riyadh has shown that she is qualified to perform at a higher position. Her religious beliefs and practices do not interfere with her wok performance.

ABC's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting her is that her religious practices not drinking alcoholic beverages and not eating certain types of foods. These do not pertain to her work performance and is not an essential duty when it comes to doing her job. National Origin Discrimination National origin discrimination means treating someone less favorably because he / she comes from a particular place, because his / her ethnicity or accent, or because it is Pg 9 believed that he / she has a particular ethnic background. It also means treating some-one less favorably at work because of marriage or other association with someone of a particular nationality. Violations under Title VII prohibits; employment decisions, harassment, language, accent discrimination, English fluency, English -only rules. For Ms. Riyadh to prove failure to promote because of national origin -at ion she must prove a primi a facie case that: (1) she belonged in a protected category, (2) that she applied for and was qualified for the position at issue, (3) she was not hired for the position, (4) under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination such as might occur when a person's not of the protected class.

Once established burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate non discriminatory reason for its decision. Then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff who must show that the reasons articulated by the employee were merely pretext. Ms. Riyadh states that ABC discriminated against her because she is a woman and of Indian ancestry and because of this ABC failed to give her a promotion. As in Yadav vs. Brookhaven National Laboratory; and Brookhaven Science Associates (204 F. Supp. 2d 509; 2002 Dist U.S.) Plaintiff employee sued defendant's employer alleging that he was denied a promotion and subject to unequal terms and conditions of employment based on race and national origin violation of 42 U.S.C. S 1981.

Plaintiff alleged that he was harassed and humiliated because of his Indian heritage. The court held that he failed to prove intentional racial or Indian national origin Pg 10 discrimination. Ms. Riyadh states no proof of evidence that she was discriminated against because of her Indian ancestry. There is no proof of humiliation nor harass-men, See Beck vs. City of Durham (129 F. Supp.

2d 844,855; 2000) Plaintiff did not show that his employers refusal to give him a light- duty assignment was because he was a Jew. Conclusion Ms. Riyadh has proved that she is a good employee ABC doesn't dispute this fact. She has shown that she is qualified for the administrative position. Ms. Riyadh has not proved enough evidence that she was discriminated against because of her sex or gender.

Nor has she prove enough evidence that her national origin played a role in not being promoted. I feel that she has provided enough evidence of being discriminated against due to her religious beliefs and practices. A reasonable jury would likely conclude that ABC legitimate non discriminatory reason for not promoting Ms. Riyadh is merely pretext and that her failure to believe in drinking alcohol and eating certain foods would not interfere with a higher position with ABC. Pg 11 Reference: o web web web Legal Research and Writing for Paralegals by Deborah E. Bouchoux.