GL 3 Flashcards
Title VII
Civil Rights of 1964
Disparate Treatment
Treated differently becasue of gender
Discrimination of its face
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
Disparate Impact
Impact Facially neutral Need not be intentional to be illegal Prima Facie Case of Disparate Treatment Defendant: Nondiscrimatory Plantiff: Pretext or could be met with fewer restrictions
Nothing to do with skill, shifts back and forth
Ezold v Wolf
Denied partnership becasue she was a women
Sued saying gender discrimination
Firm said she had a lack of analytical skills
District court said it was pretext because since she started she was been given smaller cases and comments were made to her
Law firm said she didnt go to a good enough school
Law firm wins because Ezold cannot carry her burden of pretext
Price Waterhouse v Hopkins
Cannot discriminate against (wo)man because he/she is not (wo)manly enough - precedent
Successful accountant who bough in huge clients
Passed over for partnership
Told her to walk and talk more femininely. She was too abrasive and macho, not likable.
The Court reversed the DC Circuit and held that the defendant could avoid liability by showing nondiscriminatory motivation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Jepersen v. Harrah’s Operating Co
Does it violate Title VII?
Personal best policy. Made women require hair down, lots of makeup. Women was fired because of this policy. Policy was contrary to her self imagine becasue she didnt wear makeup.
It does not violate Title VII
Equals burden for each sex. Women were not being discriminated against. Guys have to do stuff too.
Dissent: In contrast, the grooming requirement can be sex sterotypes. Case of disparate impact. Should have inlcuded time or expenses.
Systematic Bias
Employment discrimination today is a problem of structure of workplace rather that bias
Employees search process may not access the best sources of female candidates or may use criteria that are incomplete disfavoring candidates who are not well represented in workforce
Companies lack mentoring programs for minorities
Discrimination usually becomes apparent if collected in large data
Pregnancy
Differential treatment of women might be justified based on genuine differences
Women’s childbearing role used to be the excuse for not serving on juries, lawyers, or bartenders
Cleveland board of education v LaFleur addressed the constitutionality of forcing teachers unpaid maternity leave at 4 months and stay out until child was3
Did say they can say women cannot work if unable, but collectively they cannot ban all pregnant women
Amendment to title 7 PRegnancy discrimination act 1978 (PDA)
Explicitly says discrimination based on pregnancy is discrimination based on sex for purposes
CA Federal Savings and Loan Association v Guerra 1987
Whether Title VII preempts a state statute that requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy.
Title VII as amended by the PDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Petitioner brought suit claiming that a California law requiring employers to make a good faith effort to rehire workers after maternity leave treated pregnant workers disproportionately to other workers and was pre-empted by the federal law.
The federal law is a FLOOR. The CA statue is not inconsistent and different, it just is an additional layer,
Dissent: The second clause of the PDA mandates that pregnant employees be treated the same, leaves no room for preferential treatment;.
Herma Hill Kay
Pregnancy is not itself a disability, although an individual pregnant woman may experience disabling symptoms and may require medical care. If she is temporarily impaired from performing at work up to her normal level of ability, the concept of equal employment opportunity embodied in Title VII requires not only that she remain free of resulting job reprisals, but also that she secure compensatory benefits to offset any potential work-related disadvantage
Troupe v. May Department Stores
Violate Title VII?
Kim Troupe was fired the day before maternity leave.
She showed up late often and was put on to probation and agreed to work half days.
Continued to be late and violated probation. She was fired a day before maternity leave.
Did not violate Title VII
Unable to show that her tardiness was treated any differently than the tardiness of other non-pregnant employees.
UAW v Johnson Controls
Violate Title VII?
Maufactures batteries, exposing high levels of lead. 8 of their female employees becasme pregant and thier babies had high levels of lead, Johnson barred all its female employees, expecpt with infertiltiy, from enagging in tasks that require exposure to lead. District court decided with Johnson.
It does violate Title VII.
Even well intended proposals are forbidden if they result in discrimination. Johnson’s fetal-protection plan discriminated against women by not requiring their male counterparts to demonstrate proof of medical sterility, despite the fact that lead exposure has also proved hazardous to male reproductive systems.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
1974: SCOTUS (Geduldig v. Heiloo) that eliminating pregnancy from disability coverage does not violate VII
1978: SCOTUS rules (GE v. Gilbert) that pregnancy discrimination does not violate Title VII
1978: Congress passes PDA to amend Title VII
No inquiries, firing, refusal to promote or hire
No requirement to actively support pregnancy
Sexual Harassment (Form of sex discrimination)
Is the conduct sexual in nature or because of sex?
Was it serious: unwanted, humiliating and/or violation of dignity?
Quid Pro Quo
3a) Was there pressure to engage in sexual activity in exchange for job, security or promotion?
Hostile Work Environment
3b) Was it severe and pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find that work enviroment offensive
Dothard v Rawlinson
Is rejected applciation to a women of correctional counsler violate Title VII?
Applied as a trainee. Failed to meet 120 pound weight requirement/5 feet 2 inches requirement. Duty is to maintain security and control inmates. District court found disparate impact.
Weight and heigh requiremnt not allowed. It does not violate Title VII though.
They are not wrong to say there is an impact on women. Women are allowed to judge risks. Prisoners are sex offenders so its okay to protect women.
Wilson v Southwest Airlines
Femininity or more accurately sex appeal is a bona fide occupational qualification for the jobs of flight attendant and ticket agent with Southwest Airlines.
Refusal to hire men was intentional. Attractive flight attendants and ticket agents personify the airlines sexy image and fulfil passangers promise. “Love campaign”
It violates Title VII
The essence of the buisness is to provide safe travel, which men can do just as well as women, therefore it does not fly,
Rotary International v. Rotary of Duarte
Did the alw which required CA to admit women memebers violate Rotary International’s first amendement right of association. (Gender not included)
Admitted two women. CA state law said they have to. International revoked their “charter” Local businessmen bettering commuinity. Women want to be able to network.
No. It did not affect their meetings, activites, and does not prevent the club from carrying out their purpose.
Foster v back Bays Spa
man wanted to join a women’s spa and health club
Spa tried to state religious (Islamic Women revealing body parts to men)and privacy reason that men shouldn’t be allowed in spa
Many women said they only joined because it was all women, and everything was designed to fit women’s needs
Large number of coed gyms in area
Court rules it’s discrimination and unfair ~people clothed and there are huge windows
Foster said is was in violation of state public accommodation laws (unless protection under First Amendment because it wasn’t as serious of an issue to have a membership to a gym)
Cal Fed S&L v Guerra 1987
Garland took unpaid leave for pregnancy Unpaid leave violates title 7 Under qualified right to get job back once she returns unless job was going to end either way Cal Fed blatantly violated cal law Cal law and PDA cannot both exist Does Cal law violate PDA?
Young v UPS
Courts must determine whether there are legitimate reasons for differences in an employer’s policy that treats pregnant workers less favorably than non-pregnant workers with similar inabilities to work.
Peggy Young was employed as a delivery driver for the United Parcel Service During her pregnancy, Young’s medical practitioners advised her to not lift more than twenty pounds while working. UPS’s employee policy requires their employees to be able to lift up to seventy pounds. Due to Young’s inability to fulfill this work requirement, as well as the fact that she had used all her available family/medical leave, UPS forced Young to take an extended, unpaid leave of absence. During this time she eventually lost her medical coverage. Young gave birth in April 2007 and resumed working at UPS thereafter.
Young sued UPS and claimed she had been the victim of gender-and disability-based discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. UPS moved for summary judgment and argued that Young could not show that UPS’s decision was based on her pregnancy or that she was treated differently than a similarly situated co-worker. Furthermore, UPS argued it had no obligation to offer Young accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act because Young’s pregnancy did not constitute a disability. The district court dismissed Young’s claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
No, but courts must evaluate the extent to which an employer’s policy treats pregnant workers less favorably than non-pregnant workers with similar inabilities to work and determine whether there are any legitimate reasons for such differences.
Harris v Forklift System Inc
1
Onclave v Sundowner Offshore Servs Inch
1
Simonton V Runyon
1
Nichols v Azteca Restaurant
1
