35-1Discuss fully whether any of the following actions would constitute a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended. 1. Tennington, Inc. is a consulting firm and has ten employees. These employees travel on consulting jobs in seven states. Tennington has an employment record of hiring only white males.2. Novo Films, Inc. is making a film about Africa and needs to employ approximately one hundred extras for this picture. To hire these extras, Novo advertises in all major newspapers in Southern California. The ad states that only African Americans need apply.
In depth it is a bit different. If Tennington, Inc is approached by more highly qualified white males than other genders, races, etc then no violation has been committed. If not then it is likely a violation.
The film industry is perfectly capable of using makeup on other races to make them look African. In any case it makes sense that a film about Africa should use people who look like Africans. Films about the civil war generally look for actors who look like Lincoln, etc...
(*tangent* historically in the music and theater industry there used to be "white face" and "black face", of the two only white face really still exists in the form of mimes)
All in all this is a bit of fact mixed with opinion, and I'm not in any way a Business Law expert. Hopefully all people are experts in one sense or the other on Ethics though
35-2Chinawa, a major processor of cheese sold throughout the United States, employs one hundred workers at its principal processing plant. The plant is located in Heartland Corners, which has a population that is 50 percent white and 25 percent African American, with the balance Hispanic American, Asian American, and others. Chinawa requires a high school diploma as a condition of employment for its cleaning crew. Three-fourths of the white population complete high school, compared with only one-fourth of those in the minority groups. Chinawa has an all-white cleaning crew. Has Chinawa violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Explain.
Educational requirements can be legally imposed providing the educational requirement is directly related to, and necessary for, performance of the job. The requirement of a high school diploma is not a direct, job-related requirement in this case. Chinawa obviously comes under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII, as amended, and the educational requirement under the circumstances is definitely discriminatory against minorities.
35-3 PGA Tour, Inc., sponsors professional golf tournaments. A player may enter in several ways, but the most common method is to successfully compete in a three-stage qualifying tournament known as the “Q-School.” Anyone may enter the Q-School by submitting two letters of recommendation and paying $3,000 to cover greens fees and the cost of a golf cart, which is permitted during the first two stages but is prohibited during the third stage. The rules governing the events include the “Rules of Golf,” which apply at all levels of amateur and professional golf and do not prohibit the use of golf carts, and the “hard card,”which applies specifically to the PGA tour and requires the players to walk the course during most of a tournament. Casey Martin is a talented golfer with a degenerative circulatory disorder that prevents him from walking golf courses.Martin entered the Q-School and asked for permission to use a cart during the third stage. PGA refused. Martin filed a suit in a federal district court against PGA, alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Is a golf cart in these circumstances a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA? Why or why not?
Yes, a golf cart is a reasonable accommodation for a talented golfer who suffers from a disability that prevents him from being able to walk the entire golf course. To qualify on a claim under the ADA, Martin must show that he had a disability, was otherwise...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document