Irac Wee 5

Sexual Discrimination

Erika Arias, Tressa Bell, Andrew Flash, Tim Gast, Tarsha Thompson

LAW/531

December1,2014

Prof. J.D. Jonathan Jamieson

Sexual Discrimination

Issue

In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)(plaintiffs) versus Crooked Creek Investment Company d/b/a Crooked Creek & Creekside Bar & Grille(defendant) filed in the eastern district of Michigan northern division,the plaintiff sues after an unsuccessful attempt to settle through pre-litigation conciliation (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2014).

The EEOCaccuses the defendant of violating federal law by refusing to hire an applicant as a food server because she was pregnant at the time of her application (Levin, 2014).

Rule

According to (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) under subsection 2000e-2 section 703 (a)(1)(2) it states that it is unlawful employment practices for an employer to fail to hire based on race, sex, color, or religion. Employees and applicants and cannot be deprived of employment of individuals or adversely affect employment status based on individuals in regards to compensation, or privileges of employment due to race, sex, color, or religion. Additionally, The Pregnancy Act of 1978 (Cheeseman, 2013, p. 549) amended specifically to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids employment discrimination becau se of pregnancy, childbirth , or other medically related conditions. Sounds a bit off!

Analysis

Thiscase…

Conclusion

The Defendant Employer was found guilty of violating the Civil Rights Act. Their violation granted them numerous penalties. The defendant was granted permanent injunction based on refusing to hire pregnant applicants The Defendant Employer was ordered to implement new policies, practices and programs updating their employment practices. The Defendant Employer is to pay monetary punitive damages in which the amounts would be determined at trial. They are also to provide...