Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act Term Paper

Pages: 4 (1305 words)  ·  Style: APA  ·  Bibliography Sources: 3  ·  File: .docx  ·  Topic: Careers

Employment Law

SEC. 2000e [Section 701] of Title IIV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, and the company Ms. Riyadh works for has seemed to show a persistent pattern of discriminatory behavior towards women, not just the plaintiff in question. Firstly, women are underrepresented in the company in managerial positions. Secondly, Ms. Riyadh has shown excellence in her job, as demonstrated by the variety of awards she has received and her company's own admission. The company promotes from within, thus it is not because there are more qualified men from 'the outside' and although the company may allege her personal characteristics are incommensurate with their image, it is unlikely that all of the qualified women who have not been promoted have the same demeanor as the plaintiff, again suggesting a pattern of discriminatory behavior towards women.

Download full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!
Furthermore, the idea that a higher-level employee must drink, and engage in masculine bonding to be promoted is itself discriminatory, and the company's complaints regarding Ms. Riyadh's religious garb as a defense for her lack of advancement, despite her high quality of work, seem border on religious discrimination, which violates the 1st Amendment. Employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, unless the employee's religious precepts present an undue hardship upon the employer and reasonable accommodations cannot be made for the employee's religious beliefs (Faegre & Benson, 2007). The only legal ground for ABC to defend their behavior is that the plaintiff asked for unreasonable accommodations for her religious practices. But accommodating an employee's lack of alcohol consumption seems like a reasonable accommodation, as her desire to wear a modest form of dress.


With the exception of federal employees, according to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA)

29 USC 2001 et seq.;

TOPIC: Term Paper on Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act Assignment

29 CFR Part 801), employers may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take such a test. As the trucking company is not a federal agency, Candy's job cannot be rendered contingent on her willingness to take such a test ("Chapter: Lie Detector Tests," 2007, EEOC).


This case is contingent on the question of whether employees have an expectation of privacy when sending emails to other employees. Although Paul Jones sent the email from home, he presumably sent his email to the work address of a fellow employee, as it was intercepted. Given that Paul was using an employer-provided email server, not his own, and corresponding with an employee it could be interpreted that he was essentially 'at work.' At present, regarding employee electronic communication, court's decisions turn "on whether the employer had implemented, advised employees of, and, most importantly, enforced an electronic communications policy that states that employee email is the property of the company and subject to search and monitoring" (Sostowski, 2006). In one instance, in Curto v. Medical World Communications the NY State Court's opinion found that plaintiff had an expectation of privacy because plaintiff worked primarily from home, but using employer-owned laptop computers that were not connected to the employer's server, the employer rarely, enforced its monitoring policy, and most importantly plaintiff had taken precautions to protect privileged communications, thus showing that the plaintiff sought and had a reasonable expectation of privacy (Sostowski, 2006). These conditions were not met, as Paul Jones did not take added precautions to protect his privacy, therefore he should lose his case.


In reviewing decisions of the OSHRC, the court can uphold the OSHRC's findings of fact so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, according to 29 U.S.C. 660(a); CMC Elec., Inc. v. OSHA, 221 F.3d 861, 865 (6th Cir. 2000), which states: "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The substantial evidence test… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (4 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Right Act Term Paper

Civil Rights Movement in America the Struggle Term Paper

Employment Law Policies Thesis

Employment Laws the Significance of the Civil Term Paper

Civil Rights in the Gilded Age 1940s 50s and the 1960s Thesis

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act.  (2007, July 24).  Retrieved October 24, 2021, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/employment-law-1964-civil-rights-act/5613

MLA Format

"Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act."  24 July 2007.  Web.  24 October 2021. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/employment-law-1964-civil-rights-act/5613>.

Chicago Style

"Employment Law: 1964 Civil Rights Act."  Essaytown.com.  July 24, 2007.  Accessed October 24, 2021.