Research Paper: Employment Law Case

Pages: 10 (2872 words)  ·  Style: APA  ·  Bibliography Sources: 10  ·  Level: Master's  ·  Topic: Careers  ·  Buy This Paper


[. . .] (Workplace Fairness, 2013)

Examples of unlawful national origin discrimination are the following stated types of discrimination based on national origin:

(1) Affiliation: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because an individual is affiliated with a particular religious or ethnic group.

(2) Physical or cultural traits and clothing: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics, such as accent or dress associated with a particular religion, ethnicity, or country of origin. Height and weight requirements can also be evidence that an employer discriminates against a specific national origin, if the requirements do not relate to the job.

(3) Perception: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of the perception or belief that a person is a member of a particular racial, national origin, or religious group, even if the person is not.

(4) Association: Harassing or otherwise discriminating because of an individual's association with a person or organization of a particular religion or ethnicity. (Workplace Fairness, 2013)

Laws protecting individuals from discrimination based on national origin include the following stated laws:

(1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects individuals from discrimination based upon national origin.

(2) The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), is a federal law covering almost all immigration matters. It protects individuals from employment discrimination based on immigration or citizenship status, and prohibits document abuse discrimination, which occurs when employers request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility and identity, reject reasonably genuine-looking documents, or specify certain documents over others. (Workplace Fairness, 2013)

Individuals protected under IRCA's anti-discrimination provision are reported to be inclusive of "citizens or nationals of the United States, permanent residents, lawful temporary residents, refugees, and asylees." (Workplace Fairness, 2013) Title VII covers workplaces with more than 15 employees however, INA/IRCA is reported to prohibit "discrimination on the basis of national origin in workplaces where the employer employs between 4 and 14 employees." (Workplace Fairness, 2013) Additionally reported is that the protection of these laws is applicable to"…both current workers and job applicants. If you are a current employee and are fired or not promoted due to your national origin, you are protected under the law. If you are not hired due to your national origin, you are also protected under the law." (Workplace Fairness, 2013) In regards to whether ethnic jokes or slurs are considered a type of harassment, federal law does not make it unlawful to make teasing offhand remarks or isolated non-serious issues. The conduct "must be sufficiently frequent or severe to create a hostile work environment or result in a "tangible employment action," such as hiring, firing, promotion, or demotion." (Workplace Fairness, 2013) These laws are enforced by the Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) is responsible for investigating charges of job discrimination related to an individual's national origin in workplaces with 4 to 14 employees." (Workplace Fairness, 2013) As well, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for investigating charges of job discrimination related to an individual's national origin in workplaces of 15 or more employees." (Workplace Fairness, 2013) Individuals who are victims of discrimination based on their national origin in workplaces with 15 or more employees may recover back pay, hiring, promotion, reinstatement, front pay, compensatory damages (emotional pain and suffering), punitive damages (damages to punish the employer) and other actions that will make an individual "whole" (in the condition he or she would have been but for the discrimination)." (Workplace Fairness, 2013) The individual may also recover monies spent on attorney fees, expert witness fees, and court costs. Statues of limitations are applicable. Filing a complaint with the OSC must be done within 180 days from the alleged violation. Individuals in workplaces with more than 15 employees are required by law to file a complaint with the EEOC or cooperating state agency prior to filing a private lawsuit.

Case Four

Patsy is a waitress at Tom's Irish Pub. She complains to her boss, Tom, that Simon, a frequent patron of the restaurant, has been making comments to her with sexual innuendos. Patsy details Simon's activities to Tom, and requests that Simon be asked to stop. She also requests that another waitress be assigned to Simon's table. Tom, the restaurant owner, says he will look into the matter. Tom is afraid to upset Simon, who is one of the restaurant's best customers. Tom puts the matter off for a few weeks. When he finally gets around to dealing with Simon, he politely asks Simon if he can "…go a little easier on Patsy." Tom ignores Patsy's request to be relieved of any obligation to wait on Simon. Does Patsy have a claim against Tom's Irish Pub? Explain your answer.


The employer has a responsibility to protect its employees for sexual harassment perpetrated by supervisors. According to the work of Schlinker and Payok (2005) the EEOC 'Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex" addresses the issue of on-employee sexual harassment and states that the employer "may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace, where the employer, or its agent or supervisory employees, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing these cases, the Commission will consider the extent of the employer's control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such non-employees." (Schlinker and Payok, 2005) While the issues of non-employee harassment has never been addressed by the Supreme Court, evidence of the negligence of the employer to address such cases of harassment may provide evidence in establishing the liability of the employer.

Case Five

Sam has been turned down for a job as an ambulance driver because he is age 65. The rationale is that most individuals his age have certain health related characteristics that legitimately exclude them from effective service as ambulance drivers. Sam was never individually evaluated to determine whether he possessed the disqualifying characteristics. Does Sam have a claim against the hiring company? Explain why or why not.


All aspects of employment or prospective employment are under the protection of discrimination based on age including: (1) recruitment; (2) employment terms and conditions; (3) promotions and transfers; (4) training; and (5) dismissals. (NCI Direct, 2013) The law states that individuals must be allowed to work until the age of 65 years of age. It is lawful for employers to request employees to retire at age 65. However, it is unlawful for an age limit to be imposed when recruiting unless "it can be objectively justified or is imposed by law. Objective justification is established if the nature of the work results in no reasonable alternative on the part of the employer other than to introduce an age-based practice." (NCI Direct, 2013)

Case Six

A video camera aimed at the factory floor where U.S. Postage stamps are printed records what appears to be Murray, a line employee, stealing sheets of stamps from the production line. Based on the tape, factory officials search Murray's locker and find the stolen stamps. Murray challenges the search as unconstitutional. Is the search legal? Why or why not?


In the case of a search by the employer who is a private employer and not a government agency and if the employee conducting the search conducted the search with no involvement of police, then the evidence obtained during the search will be admissible into court. (United States v. Jacobsen (1984) 466 U.S. 109, 113 ALSO SEE People v. Baker (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 826, 834; People v. Wharton (1991) 53 Cal.3d 522, 579; People v. De Juan (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120; People v. Leighton (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 497, 501.


Age Discrimination: Who Is Protected? (2014) NCI… [END OF PREVIEW]

Employment Law John Doe, a Senior Vice Term Paper

Employment Law Is Made Up a Great Research Paper

Employment Law Case Study

Employment Law: Case Problems in the Present Essay

Liability the Case With Virginia Pollard Case Study

View 1,000+ other related papers  >>

Cite This Research Paper:

APA Format

Employment Law Case.  (2013, May 17).  Retrieved August 26, 2019, from

MLA Format

"Employment Law Case."  17 May 2013.  Web.  26 August 2019. <>.

Chicago Format

"Employment Law Case."  May 17, 2013.  Accessed August 26, 2019.