Prelim I - Question 1 1. Helaine is claiming intentional...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Question 1 1. Helaine is claiming intentional discrimination. There are two separate models to prove this, which are the Burdine/Hicks Model and the Mixed Motives Model. For Helaine, the best model to use is the Mixed Motives Model. When using Mixed Motives, Slacker Dan has to PROVE (not articulate or produce, as is the case with Burdine/Hicks) that he would have made the same decision regardless of Helaine’s sex, race, etc. Clearly, this is much more difficult to do. In short, winning the case is much harder for Slacker Dan to do if Mixed Motives is used. Also, even if Helaine loses, she can still receive some compensation in attorney’s fees or some other award. Additionally, if Mixed Motives Model is used, Slacker Dan will most likely want to simply settle the case, because of the fact that juries tend to side with the plaintiff. In the Mixed Motives Model, the first step involves Helaine proving a prima facie case, which she can do by showing that she is in a protected class, she is minimally qualified and applied, there was adverse employment action (fired, not hired, etc.), and that the position remained open and was ultimately filled by a person not in her protected class. Next, Helaine has to prove that discrimination was a motivating factor in her not being hired as general manager. Lastly, Slacker Dan has to prove (not articulate or produce, as with Burdine/Hicks) that he would have made the same decision regardless of Helaine’s race, sex, etc. If Slacker Dan is incapable of proving this, then Helaine wins. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, if Helaine proves that any sort of discrimination was a motivating factor, then the judge can award attorney’s fees, costs, or declaratory judgment, which says that Slacker Dan was wrong. Unfortunately, if Burdine/Hicks is used instead of Mixed Motives, these damages will not be rewarded. They are only awarded if the Mixed Motives Model is used. Slacker Dan DOES NOT have an affirmative defense. He could not use the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) defense, which says that his decision was reasonably necessary to the normal operations of the particular business or enterprise. Hiring Helaine would not go against the essence of the business. While some may argue that some patrons of the pub would be unhappy with a female general manager, that is not reason enough to not hire her. As stated in the case, Helaine did not know why she was not hired, but she did not believe it was because she was a Mets fan, since half of the staff were Mets’ fans. If she were to try to take Slacker Dan to court for discriminating against Mets fans, she would lose immediately. This is because Mets fans are not a protected class, and also because, as she knows herself, half of the staff were Mets’ fans. This proves that Slacker Dan does not discriminate against those who choose to
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This test prep was uploaded on 10/31/2007 for the course H ADM 387 taught by Professor Dsherwyn during the Fall '07 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 12

Prelim I - Question 1 1. Helaine is claiming intentional...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online