Case: Corp of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos
A nonprofit gymnasium is run by the church. Mayson (who worked for 16 years there) was fired coz he wasn’t a member of the church. He filed a lawsuit (with other people) on the bases of religious discrimination. District court: applying section 702 exemption violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Ruled for Amos Appellate court: reversed the judgment. Ruled for the church (section 702 protects the right of religious societies and associations of hiring religious ees- they don’t want to involve the gov in the business of religious institutions.)
Case: Webb v. City of Philadelphia
A female police officer requested permission to wear Hijab with her uniform. The commanding officer denied the request. (police men and women are prohibited from wearing any religious symbols while on duty). she refused to comply and was suspended. She filed a lawsuit alleging violation of title VII. Trial court: this will cause du hardship on the city. Ruled for the city of philadelphia. Appellate court: affirmed. Ruled for the city of philadelphia.
Case: EEOC v. WC&M enterprises, Inc.
Mohammed Rafiq is a muslim Indian working as a car salesman in WC&M. After 9/11, his co-workers and managers kept on harassing him and implying that he is part of “Taliban”. One of his managers issued a written warning stated that Rafiq was acting like a Muslim extremist and he could not work with him. Rafiq was fired. He filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. District court: ruled for the enterprise. Rafiq couldn’t establish that he was harassed on the bases of his national origin (india) or that he suffered emotional distress coz of the harassments (or lost sales) Appellate court: reversed. Ruled for the EEOC (Rafiq). Title VII is not limited to “tangible” or “economic” discrimination. Plus, the national origin protection includes the way a person looks not just the ACTUAL origin of the person (he got harassed coz he looks like an Arab although he is Indian).
Case: Garcia v. Spun Steak Company
24 out of the 33 workers in Spun co. are spanish speakers. The mgmt has been informed that these workers have spoken in spanish negatively (racist comments) of the african-american and chinese-american workers. The president concluded an English-only rule should take place while working ONLY to enhance harmony and product safety while working. the employees filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination claims against them. (they couldn’t express their cultural heritage in english) Trial court: ruled for the workers
Appellate court: reversed the judgment. Ruled for Spun Steak Company. Title VII doesn’t protect the ability of workers to express their cultural heritage at workplace. In addition, the workers failed to prove that the English-only rule created superiority or inferiority in the workplace toward english speakers.
Case: NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc.
NLRB presented employees (including 6 supervising nurses) of Kentucky River in a lawsuit against the hospital. At the hearing, Kentucky River objected arguing that the supervising nurses are not protected under the NLRA. The board held Kentucky River responsible for proving supervisory status. Kentucky River didn’t prove the supervisory status and thus, the nurses were included in the representation. Kentucky River refused to bargain with the union. NLRB’s general counsel filed an unfair labor practice suit. Board judgment: Kentucky river violated the NLRA. Nurses practice their job coz they are nurses and NOT coz of the managing position they hold. Kentucky river appealed Appellate court: the board erred in placing the burden of proving supervisory status on respondent (kentucky river) rather than its general counsel. NLRB is at fault. NLRB appealed Supreme court: supervisors practice independent judgment....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document