DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE
Summary of Patricia Pitts v. Wild Adventures, Inc.
In this case, a plaintiff is Patricia Pitts who is an African-American female. And the defendant is Wild Adventures, Inc. that operates a theme park in Valdosta, Georgia. The plaintiff claims race discrimination and unlawful retaliation Under Title VII and U.S. Code Section 1981 based on the defendant’s grooming policy prohibiting dreadlock and cornrow hairstyles, the defendant’s failure to promote plaintiff to Guest Services Manager, and defendant’s decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment. The complaint of plaintiff moreover contains a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on her manager saying her hairstyle was not being pretty, defendant’s failure to promote the plaintiff and decision to terminate her employment. The court’s finding that there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim. “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.” The legal principles
The plaintiff filed a charge against the defendant under Title VII and U.S. Code Section 1981. Title VII protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color as well as national origin, sex, or religion. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private contracts. There are two theories of discrimination recognized under Title VII. Disparate treatment occurs when employee show different treatment based on the individual's protected group membership and specific evidence of discrimination against a specific individual. Intentional infliction of emotional distress: Must be extreme and outrageous, “utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” must be intentional or reckless, must cause emotional distress and must be so severe that no reasonable person could endure it. Discuss the essential facts
Defendant Wild Adventures Inc. operated a theme park. Plaintiff Patricia Pitts was an African-American female who worked at this company. In May 2001, the plaintiff was a Guest Services Supervisor after twice promotion. Her manager is white female who told the plaintiff that she saying her hairstyle was not being pretty. The plaintiff attempted to comply with her request. Again, her manager still disapproved of plaintiff’s hairstyle, which had the look of dreadlocks. This time the plaintiff refused to have her hair restyled because at the time the defendant was without a policy regarding acceptable hairstyles. After a few days, the defendant issued a memo that prohibited “dreadlocks, cornrows, beads, and shells” that are not “covered by a hat/visor.” Plaintiff believed that this grooming policy was racially discriminatory because it prohibited only “Afrocentric” hairstyles. She complained about the policy to Human Resources Manager and wrote a letter to the owner of company. After plaintiff complained about grooming policy, she was written up several times for various disciplinary violations and was informed that any further disciplinary action will lead to termination in the form of a final write-up. After a few months, her manager resigned as Guest Services Manager and defendant began a search for her replacement. The plaintiff applied for the job, as did Jay Cleveland, a Human Resources Assistant at Wild Adventures. According to Defendant, the company promoted Cleveland instead of Plaintiff because Cleveland was more qualified. Shortly after Cleveland was promoted, he reported to his supervisor that plaintiff was uncooperative and not responsive to his requests. In addition, plaintiff received a verbal warning for losing her keys. And plaintiff had allowed customers to enter the park without paying in violation of park policy. In the end, the plaintiff was informed her that employment was being terminated because of her lengthy disciplinary record, her reported refusal to cooperate with her manager, and reports that plaintiff had permitted customers to enter the park without...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document