Question

Janet Johnson, an African American woman, has been working at the Tennessee Hydroelectric plant for 15 years. During that time, his performance reviews have been exemplary. She decided to apply for the new plant foreman position. Although she felt that she was eminently qualified for the position, she also was growing tired of a certain good old boy culture at the plant. For years, the plant has had a culture of highly lewd “jokes,” and many of the employees had also engaged in inappropriate touching of female employees. The plant had an anti-harassment policy on record, but Janet’s boss shrugged and said “boys will be boys” when she reported the harassment to him.

Competition for the position was fierce. But ultimately, Jose Martinez, a Chilean man, received the position. Jose had 7 years of experience. Unbeknownst to the applicants the promotion board secretly ran a credit check on the applicants. Janet credit score came in as lower as average, and this factored into the board’s decision. Although he met the qualifications of the position, one of the hiring managers told Janet in confidence that Janet was the most qualified person for the job. And the other managers had applied a racial preference on Jose’s behalf due to there never having been a Latino manager at the plant even though Latino’s represented 35% of employees at the plant. Janet sues the plant for disparate treatment, disparate impact, and sexual harassment under Title VII.


Questions

1. List the elements of disparate treatment and apply them to this case. Can Janet prove a prima facie case? How would the plant rebuff these charges? Who would ultimately prevail?
2. List the elements of a disparate impact case and apply them to this case? Will Janet prevail on this charge?
3. List the elements of the sexual harassment case and apply them to this case? Can the plant establish an affirmative defense?
4. If the plant argues that it applied a racial preference to Jose to correct a manifest imbalance at the plant of underutilization of certain minorities, will the plant prevail? Why or why not?
5. Was it legal to use the credit check as a factor in the promotion decision the way that it was done here? Why or why not?

     

Answer 1

I hope I have addressed each part of the question you’ve asked. Please leave a like if you find this answer helpful, it really helps me a lot and motivates me in providing better answers in future. If you have any doubts, please let me know before leaving a dislike I would surely assist you. Thanks in advance for liking this answer.

List the elements of disparate treatment and apply them to this case. Can Janet prove a prima facie case? How would the plant rebuff these charges? Who would ultimately prevail?

Prima facie should be used as an adjective, "enough to create fact or lift a hypothesis until it is disproved or dismissed." There are several factors which show us how Janet can prove prima facie given the details in the scenario. Those considerations are: the plaintiff's covered class rights are applicable to this case, she is a woman. The job she applied to was for the new position at the factory. There was job potential, a plant foreman's position was open and she was eligible for the role. Despite being eligible for the job she was refused a promotion to the rank of foreman of the factory. Somebody with a contrasting protected class attribute was offered the role, he was a latin man. How will those charges be rebuffed by the plant? Through providing a real, non-discriminatory argument as to why Janet was not selected over Jose, the plant might rebuff those claims. Everything that the boss needs to do is provide compelling proof that demonstrates his rationale for hiring Jose for the job, in this situation it will be the fact it they hired a Hispanic man who falls into a particular protected class.

In this case, the complainant may theoretically claim that the employers 'rationale behind the pick, while adequate as a prima facie answer, is not plausible and falls under pretext. Janet may theoretically provide further evidence of sexism, such as the background of lewd jokes and the "boys will be boys" reaction to threats she mentioned. In fact, she might call her employer as a witness to her concerns about the abusive work environment.

List the elements of a disparate impact case and apply them to this case? Will Janet prevail on this charge?

Disparate effect applies to unfair activities that may be considered accidental discrimination. Disparate influence happens when laws, processes, regulations or other structures that tend to be favorable to a disadvantaged community have a disproportionate effect. In this situation the difference was triggered by the plant preferring to recruit Jose for promotion over Janet. Janet was the most suitable candidate for this job as stated by one of the hiring managers and the fact that the employer had available alternate and less restrictive steps which would have met his needs. They may have recruited Janet for the role, and still still fulfilled the organization's needs.

If Janet may show that there are the characteristics of prejudice, otherwise it is up to the prosecution to give valid explanations for hiring Jose instead of Janet. Depending on the facts presented, she could show that the effect of her case was unequal, because it was a benefit of a man over a woman.

List the elements of the sexual harassment case and apply them to this case? Can the plant establish an affirmative defense?

Sexual assault cases include actions comprising of unwanted sexual advances, demands for sexual services and/or verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature culminating in a change of terms of employment or conditions. It can be seen that the plant has a history of "lewd" jokes, and unwanted female employee contact. Janet will prove that the plant has not dealt with this activity sufficiently even after mentioning it to her boss.

To develop affirmative defence, the plant must be able to show that it has taken appropriate steps to deter and redress any such racist or threatening behaviour. They struggled to exploit such an opportunity as no action was taken after Janet reported the actions against the plant's woman workers.

If the plant argues that it applied a racial preference to Jose to correct a manifest imbalance at the plant of underutilization of certain minorities, will the plant prevail? Why or why not?

Unless they had to claim racial discrimination to correct a clear inequality the plant would be unable to succeed. This is how Janet will prove that the oppressive factors are there. The responsibility would then move to the supervisor to explain that Jose was chosen over Janet. Depending on the details Janet would give, she will be able to show that her situation is having a disproportionate effect in supporting a man over a woman. Part of her reasoning for this may involve the number of male supervisors versus the number of female supervisors, essentially showing there is a larger difference between such numbers than there is between races.

Was it legal to use the credit check as a factor in the promotion decision the way that it was done here? Why or why not?

There is a series of legal guidelines for an contractor to lawfully manage the account of an employee or prospective employee that they will obey in compliance with the Federal Equal Credit Reporting Act. Those rules are:

(i) Get the applicant's permission before withdrawing the application.

(ii) Notify the applicant (along with a copy of the submitted application) if the employer decides to deny the applicant on the grounds of the report.

(iii) Send the applicant an legal notice of adverse action if the employer does not accept him or her because of the content of the report.

Therefore, when the promotion board secretly administered the credit test it was done unlawfully. In comparison, given Janet's lower than average score, which was factored into the board's judgment, they would also have presented her with a copy of the evaluation she had received.