The document analyzes whether an employer violated Title VII by allowing racially discriminatory jokes to be sent over its email system. It finds that the employer did not violate Title VII because it had an established email policy prohibiting non-business use and took corrective action by disciplining the offending employee and holding meetings about appropriate email use.
Relevancy of evidence under Section 6 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
Uploaded notes in my SlideShare are limited to the basic principles based on personal understanding and subject to few amendments. Comments and updates are welcomed! If the notes benefited you, kindly let me know :)
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Relevancy of evidence under Section 6 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
Uploaded notes in my SlideShare are limited to the basic principles based on personal understanding and subject to few amendments. Comments and updates are welcomed! If the notes benefited you, kindly let me know :)
Relevancy of evidence under Section 7 of Evidence Act 1950Intan Muhammad
P/S : I am sharing my personal notes of law-related subjects. Some parts of them are explained in a very informal-relaxed way and mix of languages (BM and English). Secondly, as law revolves every day, there will be outdated parts in my notes. Two ways of handling it.. (1) double check with the latest law and keep it to yourself (2) same with No. 1 coupled with your generosity to share with us, the LinkedIn users (hiks ^_^). Till then, have a nice day!
Harassment and Discrimination Prevention Training for California Managers provides a comprehensive and interactive learning experience that satisfies California AB 1825 requirements but also offers practical, real-world strategies for today’s manager.
The state requires that all managers in California complete two hours of harassment training every other year and that new managers complete the training within six months of hire or promotion. Although managers outside of California are exempt from the requirement, it is highly recommended that any manager responsible for employees working in California also dedicate time to this learning opportunity to ensure there is a strong understanding of California’s broad protections for workers and steps that a business and a manager can take to reduce their exposure to risk in this area.
Log in for a basic understanding of California regulations as well as updates on:
• The affirmative obligation
• Personal liability of supervisors
• Updated disability protections
• New protected classes
Presented by Human Resources Account Manager, Rebecca McDonough, CA-SPHR.
Legal Aspects Relating to Social Media in the WorkplaceBrian Bluff
This presentation addresses legal issues companies must deal with when considering participating in social media. By Colin M. Leonard, Esq. of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.
Create a Harmonious Workplace and Avoid LitigationCase IQ
An optimum workplace environment is critical for the health of any organization. So what specific ingredient creates that optimum environment for you and your associates? Log in to this webinar to find out about the one primary ingredient that will help foster a sense of community, boost employee morale and increase productivity, while at the same time help to protect the business from conflict, workplace violence and employment lawsuits.
In order to achieve this type of workplace, managers, executives and the human resources team must all be on board, creating and enforcing policies that encourage employees to be courteous and discourage conflict.
Paper should be approximately 3300 words, excluding title and refe.docxherbertwilson5999
Paper should be approximately 3300 words, excluding title and reference pages. Should respond to each of the claims being raised by the employee and the defenses available to the employer. Must cite the laws that protect or prohibit such conduct, and analyze each element of the cause of action to determine what the outcome may be for each claim. Be sure to include in-text citations, as well as an APA title page, and reference page. Also, be sure to utilize at least 3 court cases and any applicable statutes that apply to the claims being made by the employee. Also utilize at least 2 peer-reviewed sources in addition to the court cases, statutes and class text.
“Expectation Of Privacy”
Company X has a policy that provides the following:
Employees are reminded that all computers issued by the Company, as well as all data and information sent, received, or stored on those computers, remain the property of the Company. Employees should not have any expectation of privacy with respect to information transmitted over, received by, or stored on a Company computer. The Company maintains the rights to monitor, modify, and delete all data that is stored on its computers. A violation of any aspect of this policy may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
Employees should not expect that information on any company computer will be confidential or that they will have any proprietary, privacy, or protected confidentiality right with respect to such information. In order to monitor compliance with this policy and protect its business interests, including the need to prevent any improper use of computers, the company reserves the right to gain access to any information stored in, accessed, used or retrieved by any of its computers.
When employees log into their computer, the following message appears and the employee must acknowledge and accept the warning before access into the system is allowed:
WARNING: This system contains information that is the property of Company X and is for authorized use only. Unauthorized access is prohibited. Activities of users on this system are monitored. Anyone accessing this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of criminal activity, the evidence may be provided to law enforcement officials.
Salrita was recruited by Company X. She and her wife were relocated by the company so that Salrita could accept a senior level position with the company. Salrita was recently terminated because the company did not consider her to be a good fit. She had worked for the company for 15 months and was brought in to turn around a division that had suffered from poor productivity and leadership. During the last year, Human Resources conducted 23 different investigations filed by employees complaining of harassment and discrimination. Employees made statements like the following: “She is such a bitch.” “The dike is never happy.” “She i.
Creating a Dealership Social Media Policy With Teeth
Fact Pattern Analysis
1. To: Professor
From: Christina Leftridge
Re: Fact Pattern
Date: 01/19/2010
FACT PATTERN ANALYSIS
Question: Did EMPLOYER violate Title VII by allowing employees to use the e-mail system to send racially discriminatory jokes?
Answer: EMPLOYER did not violate Title VII because EMPLOYER had an established e-mail policy prohibit company e-mail use
for non-business purposes. EMPLOYER took corrective action shortly after learning of the jokes by holding company meetings
discussing appropriate use of the e-mail system, and EMPLOYER disciplined the employee who sent the racially discriminatory
jokes.
ISSUES
PRELIMINARY ISSUES:
A determination of whether EMPLOYER is under the regulations of Title VII must be made before Angela can assert
this violation in court. Employers subject to Title VII include public and private employers, unions, joint labor and management
committees making admission, referral, training, other decisions, and employment agencies. Employers must have more than
15 employees to be subject to Title VII regulations. Employers are exempt from Title VII regulations if they operate on or
around Native American reservations, are registered as a communist organization or registered as a religious institution. If
EMPLOYER applies to one of the exempt categories or has less than 15 employees, then Angela will not be able to bring a Title
VII discrimination claim against them. If EMPLOYER is a registered communist or religious institution, then Angela will not be
able to bring a claim for racial discrimination.
Angela’s status as an employee must be determined before Angela’s claim can be brought to court. Title VII applies to
all levels of public and private employees, but does not apply to independent contractors. If Angela is classified under the IRS
test or economic realities test as an independent contractor, she will not be able to bring a Title VII claim against EMPLOYER.
Requirements for a Title VII prima facie case include sufficient facts showing that race discrimination occurred against
Angela. Angela cannot bring the claim on behalf of another party. Angela needs to establish that she belongs to a protected
class under Title VII. Angela also needs to show that EMPLOYER’S disciplinary procedures for violating the e-mail policy favor
others and unfairly discriminates against her. Angela needs to have sufficient facts showing that EMPLOYER’S e-mail policy or
enforcement procedures favor others over her.
LEGAL ISSUES:
EMPLOYER had a written e-mail policy prohibiting the use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. This policy
was violated when Cathy sent the racially discriminatory jokes over the company’s e-mail system.
Diane, the manager of the department, took action against Cathy by issuing a strong verbal warning and placing a
written reprimand in her personnel file shortly after learning that Cathy had sent racially discriminatory jokes over the
company’s e-mail system. Diane also held a staff meeting three days after the second jokes were sent, discussing the company’s
e-mail policy that prohibits the use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. Diane’s actions are evidence of how the
company enforced the e-mail policy.
The Human Resources Manager, Tom, also took action two days later by holding a meeting, where Angela was
allowed to voice her objections to the jokes. Tom also discussed the company’s e-mail policy with employees that prohibit the
use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. Tom’s actions are evidence of the procedures the company uses to enforce
the e-mail policy.
2. LEGAL RULES
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with
respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or
tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an
employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII prohibits employers from taking any action that discriminates against an employee, who qualifies under the
categories race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Angela asserts that EMPLOYER violated this law when it
allowed Cathy to send racially discriminatory jokes over the company’s e-mail system.
Daniels v. WorldCom Corp. 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2335 (N.D. Tex. 1998). The Daniels case serves as precedent for this
fact pattern as a case on point. In Daniels, an employee sent racially discriminatory jokes over the e-mail system.
The company had an e-mail policy that prohibiting the use of company e-mail for non-business purposes. Another
employee complained about the jokes, and the managers of the company held meeting with employees to discuss
the company’s e-mail policy. The employee who sent the jokes was reprimanded with a verbal warning and a written
reprimand went into her personnel file. The court ruled for the employer in this case.
ANALYSIS
Angela claims that EMPLOYER violated VII by allowing Cathy to send racially discriminatory jokes over
EMPLOYER’S e-mail system. EMPLOYER had an e-mail policy in place prohibiting the use of company e-mail for
non-business purposes. This prohibition serves to thwart employees from using e-mail in a racially discriminatory
manner. EMPLOYER also took disciplinary steps against Cathy for violating the company’s e-mail policy as well as
holding meeting with employees to reiterate the company’s e-mail policy. EMPLOYER’S disciplinary action against
Cathy and ensuring that other employees know and abide by the e-mail policy, or be subject to disciplinary
actions, are evidence that EMPLOYER does not condone the racially discriminatory jokes. It also evidences that
EMPLOYER took action to prevent racial discrimination with other employees.
3. EMPLOYER’S e-mail policy and actions after the incident are similar to the facts in Daniels. The court in
Daniels ruled that the existing e-mail policy, disciplinary action against the employee who violated the policy, and
the quick employee meetings that occurred after the incident was reasonable and did not violate Title VII.
RESULT
This case will likely be dismissed. EMPLOYER had an appropriate e-mail in place that prohibited
employees from using the company’s e-mail system for non-business purposes. Cathy violated the e-mail policy
and EMPLOYER reprimanded her for her actions.
ALTERNATE ACTION BY EMPLOYEES
Employees need to be more aware that society strongly disapproves of racially discriminatory jokes and
should not send any such jokes over the company’s e-mail system. Employees should vocalize to management the
need for racial awareness and sensitivity training to prevent racially discriminatory motives and decisions at work.
ALTERNATE ACTIONS BY EMPLOYERS
Employers should educate their employees on a regular basis on racial discrimination at the workplace.
This will help to lower the chance that an employee will discriminate against another employee, when using e-mail
or during business conversation. Employers should have written reprimand policies that are followed shortly after
every incident. This will ensure each employee is reprimanded in exactly the same manner. Employers should also
review their e-mail policies on a regular basis to ensure they adequately address discrimination issues. Employers
should communicate to employees that they will not be retaliated against for bringing racial discrimination issues
to the attention of the company.