Chapter 18 Cases - Chapter 18 Desert Palace 1 Mixed-Motive...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 18 Desert Palace 1 – Mixed-Motive - The same adverse employment decision would have been taken based on other business considerations containing no discriminatory motives. Example - Ann Hopkins was not made a partner at the Price Waterhouse accounting firm. Some evidence indicated that she was abrasive with staff members, a legitimate reason not to promote a person to partner. Other evidence indicated that the selection process was influenced by gender stereotyping, including one partner who advised her to improve her chances for partnership by stating, “Walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear makeup, have your hair styled, and wear jewelry.” On remand from the Supreme Court, Hopkins was awarded the partnership, back pay, and attorney fees. 2 - If the employer is able to demonstrate that it would have taken the same action absent the unlawful motive, a court is limited to awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and declaratory relief. However, the court may not award the plaintiff damages such as back pay; compensatory or punitive damages; or admission, reinstatement, hiring, or promotion. Albemarle 1 – Yes, the Supreme Court held that back pay should be denied only in limited situations and for reasons that would not frustrate the purposes of Title VII. 2 - The court refused, however, to order back pay for losses sustained by the plaintiff class under the discriminatory system on the grounds that (1) Albemarle’s breach of Title VII was found not to have been in “bad faith” and (2) respondents had initially disclaimed interest in back pay and delayed making their back pay claim until five years after the complaint was filed, thereby prejudicing petitioners. The court also refused to enjoin or limit Albemarle’s testing program, which respondents had contended had a disproportionate adverse impact on blacks and was not shown to be related to job performance. The court concluded that “personnel tests administered at the plant have undergone validation studies and have been proven to be job-related.” 3 – Yes. Bowman Transportation
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 note was uploaded on 06/21/2011 for the course ACCOUNTING 0116001 taught by Professor Bloom during the Spring '07 term at Santa Fe College.

Page1 / 5

Chapter 18 Cases - Chapter 18 Desert Palace 1 Mixed-Motive...

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