employment law notes 2 (2)

employment law notes 2 (2) - Brian Cheng Employment Law...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Brian Cheng Employment Law – Cooney Notes - 2 nd Half of class October 21, 2010 National Origin – Discrimination National Origin discrimination violates 2 Laws - Title VII - NJLAD Title VII Cannot discriminate against national origin NJLAD – New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Garcia-vs-Spun Steak (9 th Circuit) - Parties: o Garcia – plaintiff 2 plaintiffs union o why was the union involved? “standing” – only injured party can bring lawsuit for ex: bob gets hit by car. He can sue because he is involved and the one that is injured. If I see bob getting hit by a car, I can not sue because I am not in legal “standing” o Spun Steak – defendant - Facts: o 24 workers were bilingual o English Only rule Only English will be spoken during work Except during break/lunchtime; free to speak whatever language o 2 girls speaking in Spanish making derogatory comments about another employee get disciplined o Chinese-American and African-American, the comments were made too o Scope of that rule Narrow Was there a business purpose? Yes, for safety and business rationale o Union has a legal duty to represent an employee (that is in a union) that was terminated Part of the reason why dues are paid, so they can represent union members - Procedure: o Title VII – National Origin Case o Go to EEOC EEOC thought it was a discriminatory English only rule Ruled for plaintiff o U.S. District court Ruled for plaintiff - Issue: 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
2 o Whether the English only rule violated Title VII? - Holding: o No violation o The English only rule did not violate Title VII because it was narrow and scope and it was supported for business purpose. How can you tell if it was unanimous? - if there was no dissent EEOC-vs-Premier Operator (Northern District of Texas/ a U.S. District Court) - Parties: o EEOC – plaintiff Class Action case EEOC have the right to take on cases Normally take on bigger cases If they feel strongly enough, they will take your case Free lawyers if involved o Premier Operator – Defendant Telephone company - Facts: o English Only Rule Only English will be spoken at work premises only if customer does not speak English Scope of that rule: o Overly broad Business Purpose: o None o What if people violated that rule? Employees were terminated - Issue: o Did the English Only rule - Holding: o Yes, rule violated title VII o Yes because court ruled scope and business purpose = none. - Sanctions: o Remedies: Back pay 60,000/# of employees (divided) 50,000 for each employee = 650,000 Retaliation - also violates title VII Linguist: - code switching: o when speaking Spanish for a while and then enter a English only premises, speakers tend to speak English with Spanish words Judgment:
Background image of page 2
Brian Cheng Employment Law – Cooney Notes - 2 nd Half of class - can not receive money if company files bankruptcy October 28, 2010 Religious Discrimination (Title VII) Readings: Estate of Thornton v Caldor, Inc. U.S. (1985)
Background image of page 3

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 15

employment law notes 2 (2) - Brian Cheng Employment Law...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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