USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Directions
1. Chose one of the following articles/cases to read and post your thoughts on one of these issues and respond to the postings of at least two of your fellow students.
Can an employer be liable for a non-supervisor’s alleged racial bias? (Links to an external site.)
Discuss the issues presented in BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. EEOC U.S. Supreme Court No. 06- 341. Certiorari granted Jan. 5, 2007. Ruling below:
450 F.3d 476 (10th Cir. 2006) (Links to an external site.)
from your own perspective and how you understand the law in this area. 6 June 2010.
“Using The Duck Test For Professional Employees. (Links to an external site.)
” By Christopher Mills and Jason Storipan. What do you think of this test? What other measure would you recommend?
“
SOCIAL NETWORKING: A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY (Links to an external site.)
.” Shaw, Jennifer Brown and Sperry, Alexander. What protections can you as a prospective employee take? Do you agree that employers should be looking into these areas?
Greenhouse, Linda. “
Justices Say Law Bars Retaliation Over Bias Claims (Links to an external site.)
.” 28 May 2008, 6 July 2010,
2. Reply to at least two of your classmates using the discussion grading criteria ( updating later )
Bailey Blevins
Monday
For my post, I will be discussing the link, “Greenhouse Linda.”
In summary, there are two different cases. The first one is a plaintiff who is identified as Myrana Perez, and she is suing the postal services in which she
works. Perez was rejected the opportunity to transfer offices due to age discrimination. Because Perez made the complaint, the supervisors at her work began
harassing her. The case was dismissed due to her being a federal worker, she is not protected by retaliation claims. It was also stated that, “these problems
should be handled by managers not the law.”
The second story a black man named that of Hedrick Humphries who was an employer of Cracker Barrel, had been racially discriminated at his work by a
fellow white employee who was also a manager. When Humphries confronted the situation, he was fired. Court ruled in favor of Humphries because this
interfered with his rights.
Some statistics I would like to share from this reading is, “Retaliation complaints filed annually with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission doubled
in the last 15 years to 22,000 from 11,000. I had no idea there were these many issues about this topic and was fascinated by the numbers.
As we have learned there are laws set in place to protect the working man/woman from discrimination of any kind. One being the Civil Rights Act and the
Employment Act. However, this doesn’t apply to those that work for the federal government.
In my opinion, I am glad that the court ruled in favor of Mr. Humphries. That situation was preposterous, and he should not have been fired for speaking up
for himself. That made me lose some respect for the company because I feel strongly about discrimination. With Ms. Perez I don’t know why the law is different
for those that work with the federal government, but I do and do not agree with the court’s decision. Discrimination or retaliation of any kind should not be
accepted in the workplace. I do agree that the case should have been handled by the workplace itself, but what if she felt uneasy and that they would do the
same since the supervisors weren’t doing their duties.
:
Bianca Corvetto
Yesterday
In my post I will be talking about the link above “Lewis Tyler”
The reading discussed a Unanimous supreme court hearing that allowed for a group of African american firefighters to sue the city of Chicago for discriminatory hiring tests. That over turned a lower court decisions saying it was too late to file their claim.
Between the years of 1996-2002 the city of Chicago conducted 11 rounds of hiring based on results of a test plaintiffs alleged caused a disparate impact on African-Americans. African american applicants filed a discrimination suit and won their case in
federal district court. but he Court of appeals for the seventh circuit reversed it, saying that the claim was filed more than 300 days after the act was committed.
“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that job-seekers should not be denied justice based on a technicality. This victory goes well beyond the immediate results in Chicago. It should ensure that no other fire department or employer uses a discriminatory
test, and LDF will go the extra mile to make sure that they do not,” is a quote from John Payton who is president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
The Court was asked to rule on whether or not the 300-day window begins with the test or every hiring decision that follows. The Court sent the case back to the lower courts to decide whether it violated or not.
