1) The document summarizes four cases involving discrimination in the workplace. In the first case, a female employee was fired despite better performance than male employees. The regional manager made sexist comments. 2) The second case involved a white employee who was fired after associating with black people. Racist comments were made by management. 3) In the third case, a black employee faced racial harassment and was fired after complaining. Management did not properly address the complaint. 4) The fourth case involved a hiring manager making a racist comment and an HR representative disregarding discrimination in hiring. Comprehensive anti-discrimination training for all employees was recommended.

1. Fatima Shaikh, MGMT 6613-01, April 18, 2015; Title VII Write-up: Write-up #2
For the first case, the protected class is sex. The manifestation of the discrimination is
that the CP was fired because of her sex, and the other males retained had worse performance
than her. Another is that the regional manager said he was uncomfortable working with women
in construction sales to the CP and other staff. The McKinney office manager should have
alerted HR about the regional manager’s sex bias in hiring. The regional manager needs to go
under corrective Title VII training, which can be done through a computer simulation. The fact
that HR wasn’t involved (and they should be involved) gives the appearance the workers are too
afraid to approach HR. This needs to be fixed, such as through employee relations
representatives to listen to both employees and supervisors, and work with both groups to resolve
problems and address concerns (http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-employee-relations-
definition-lesson-quiz.html).
The second case has race as its protected class. The manifestation of discrimination is
that the CP (who is white) was fired from her director of sales position for associating with
blacks and the defendant retaliated. The CP was often praised for her work, but when the
defendant saw her biracial children the defendant was shocked and disappointed. The following
week, another manifestation occurred with the defendant making stereotypical and pejorative
comments about black people to the CP, and the CP should have gone to HR. The defendant
began interviewing people for the CP’s position, resulting in a new assistant getting hired, and
the general manager firing the CP without stating any cause. The new manager began doing the
CP’s duties. A three year consent decree resolved the case, and the CP will be monetarily
compensated. The reason was said to be racial discrimination and retaliation. HR can implement
an anonymous phone call number to register complaints if people are too afraid to approach HR

2. (ex: https://www.openboard.info/afsi/index_hr.cfm). HR should make it clear to employees that
they are there to help in situations like these. HR can prevent monetary loss to the organization if
it takes a more active role.
In the third case, the protected class being violated is race. The manifestation of
discrimination is a racially hostile work environment and subjection of the CP to unequal terms
and conditions of employment based on his race (black) and relieving him of his employment in
retaliation for his discrimination complaints. Some manifestations of discrimination included
how the defendant made racial comments to the CP, screamed obscenities to him and made him
go for a drug test when there were no reasonable grounds. The GM intensified his harassment
after the CP complained, and the CP didn’t hear anything back about his complaint. The CP and
two former black employees were monetarily relieved through a four year consent decree. HR
should have been more responsive to the complaint and documented everything, so they could
have avoided this case (see: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/3943/documenting-hrs-
responsiveness-cuts-harassment-liability). I would look into why his complaint was not
answered, which can help us to avoid whatever caused the monetary loss next time around. Any
problems that we uncover need to be fixed. The GM should be fired for his flagrant behavior.
In the fourth case, race is the protected class that is violated under Title VII. The
manifestation of discrimination is the hiring manager’s comment that to have a black person on
the team would be difficult and s/he would be hard to manage. Another is that the HR
representative then extended the offer to the white applicant despite knowing the true
background of the situation. This company and HR need Title VII training. It can be a yearly or
semi-annual training, and outside companies can help (http://www.fhsolutionsgroup.com/ ).
Talking about the situation with HR can also have a corrective effect.