Question

Case 3: Tupelo Chemical, a manufacturer of industrial chemicals operating in Tupelo, MS for the past 7 years. Tupelo Chemical employed 14 fulltime employees and 26 part-time employees when it announced two vacancies in its emergency maintenance operation. Tupelo Chemical has a rule that members of its emergency maintenance crews could not be single parents of young children, because child care responsibilities often interfere with work responsibilities. Four candidates of the 17 who applied meet the minimum qualifications for the job. Fred, a white male is not married and has no children. Marcus, an African-American male has a wife and a two-year old son. The two remaining candidates who applied for an opening, Bill and Mary, also have pre-school aged children. Both have four years prior experience in emergency maintenance at other companies, and both have exceptional performance evaluations. Bill was recently divorced and Mary was recently widowed.

Bill the father of a three-year-old daughter requested an exception to the company's policy by producing an affidavit that both his sister and his mother stated that they would handle any child care problems that might arise.

Mary, a single mother of a four-year-old son, also requested that she be granted an exception to policy based on an affidavit that her female roommate also agreed to handle any childcare problems that might arise. Her request was denied. On February 22, 2019, it was announced that the two vacant positions would be filled by Fred and Marcus. Neither Mary nor Bill was given a job offer. After brooding over the fact that the two vacant positions were filled by equally qualified men, Mary filed a complaint with the EEOC on September 4, 2019.

a. Can the CP establish a prima facie case under Title VII, and, if so, on what grounds (which protected class was unlawfully discriminated against)? (2 pts)  Why or why not? (3 pts)

b. Based only on the information provided, who will prevail--the respondent or the complaining party? Why? (4 pts)

Answer 1

Prima facie case of discrimination

In an employment setting, a prima facie case of discrimination is where the plaintiff has sufficient evidence to prove that their employer discriminated against them. The plaintiff was a member of a “protected group” The plaintiff was qualified in all respects for the job they sought.

If you are claiming unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation against your employer, then the burden of proof begins with you. You must prove enough facts from which the tribunal can decide, without any other explanation, that the discrimination, harassment or victimisation has taken place.

1. Can the CP establish a prima facie case under Title VII, and, if so, on what grounds (which protected class was unlawfully discriminated against)? (2 pts)  Why or why not?

Unlawfully discriminated under Disparate Treatment and Based on an Act of Favoritism

Disparate Treatment

Disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats some individuals less favorably than other similarly situated individuals because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. To prove disparate treatment, the charging party must establish that respondent's actions were based on a discriminatory motive. This does not mean, however, that the charging party must establish that respondent deliberately or willfully discriminated against him/her by submitting proof of respondent's subjective state of mind. The courts and the Commission have recognized that it is difficult and often impossible to obtain direct evidence of discriminatory motive. They have held that discriminatory motive can be inferred from the fact of differences in treatment.  Teamsters, supra; Commission Decision No. 71-1683, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6262. In an adverse impact charge, on the other hand, the EOS is only concerned with whether an employment policy has the effect of disproportionately excluding women and/or minorities. There is no need to establish the presence of a discriminatory motive.

The basis of the disparate treatment theory is differences in treatment between similarly situated individuals. A comparison between similarly situated individuals is comparative evidence. In determining which individuals are similarly situated, the EOS must decide who would reasonably be expected to receive the same treatment in the context of a particular employment decision.

Based on an Act of Favoritism

Title VII only prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If in isolated instances a respondent discriminates against the charging party and other similarly situated individuals in favor of a relative or friend, no violation of Title VII has occurred. In a hiring case, for example, if all applicants including the charging party were rejected and respondent official hired his wife's nephew, the discrimination may not have been on a prohibited basis. If all of the applicants for the position were female or minorities and there is some indication that respondent official hired his wife's nephew to avoid hiring one of the applicants, the EOS should investigate to determine whether respondent's actions were a pretext to hide discrimination. In this case the composition of respondent's workforce and respondent's past hiring practices would be very important pieces of evidence.

If a respondent has a policy of according preferential treatment to relatives of employees and its workforce is predominantly of one race or national origin, the policy will ordinarily have an adverse impact on other races and national origins. See e.g., Commission Decision No. 71-797, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6181.

Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence:

• the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff.
• defendant's breach of that duty.
• plaintiff's sufferance of an injury.
• proof that defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause)

B. Respondent will Prevail,

Title VII only prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. If in isolated instances a respondent discriminates against the charging party and other similarly situated individuals in favor of a relative or friend, no violation of Title VII has occurred.

Tupelo Chemical company does not showed any gender discrimination or any other form of deliberate discrimination. The company has only one focus that to select right employee who can work effectively as emergency maintanace crew. There are only two vacancies in its emergency maintenance operation. Tupelo Chemical has a rule that members of its emergency maintenance crews could not be single parents of young children, because child care responsibilities often interfere with work responsibilities.

Bill and Mary having enough experience but both are failed in the rule that members of its emergency maintenance crews could not be single parents of young children, so that Mary can not file against company. because company already mentioned this as their company policy.