I want you to rephrase this file a little bit with the same meaning so i can turn it in as soon as possible
shouldn't be rephrased? completely?
1 Assignments ch1-16
Webster University Assignments 2 Ch1
The case is about discrimination shown by p group, the common law agency test
defines in the employee-employer relationship who has the right to define, and
control the actions.
The common law hybrid test is often used on employees to find out if they belong
to the employees? cadre or independent contractors.
The economic realities test aims at bring out the facts such as it tries to find out the
employee is a salaried employee or if the employment is of profit sharing type. Ch2
The case is about the worker, P, who had worked for H for 16 years.
The court?s offering protection will be based on the seriousness of the petition for
In this case P needs to be protected from discharge of services by the court as he
was safe guarding the interests of the public. Ch3
According to the court, the employer CU is a religious institution. This
organization has its own policies and procedures to protect the interest of religion. Assignments 3 According to Mr. C, the employer is performing gender discrimination by
providing priority to the women.
According to the title VII the religious institution has a specific power. Ch4
The unbalanced work force alone cannot be treated as a disparate treatment. The
unbalanced work force may be due to many reasons like unintentional,
demographical conditions etc. Apart from this the attitude and behavior of the
employees towards it can contribute to the disparate treatment more than the
An organization with white employees which is performing the word of mouth
recruitment can certainly end up with the white applicants and will have to recruit
from those applications. This is an unintentional discrimination. Here the decision
will be the same as concluding it as unintentional discrimination. But the employer
can select some other recruitment practices too so that it can balance its work force
with the black employees.
As mentioned above the employer can adopt the other recruitment processes also
so as to include black employees in the work force. When a few black employees
come in, then they can be asked for the word of mouth reference. Since this
reference is most cost effective all employers prefer to adopt this method.
In the given case the organization has promoted the women employee so as to stick
on with the discrimination legislations proposed by the government. As per title
VII the women should not be discriminated in a work place.
Here the court said that the voluntary affirmative decision taken by the
organization is correct. This decision of the court is quite sensible. This is because,
as per title VII the organization has the right to take voluntary affirmative action to
reduce or to eliminate discrimination. Hence it gave priority to women through
giving the promotion.
The action taken by the organization is agreeable as it just followed the legal path
so that it should not face any issues in the long run. There is no chance to disagree Assignments 4 the decision as it is the responsibility of the organization to follow the rules, laws
If an employer disagrees with the court?s decision, he can make choice based on
the performance and the experience of the employee. The employer should prove
that the person selected for promotion is fit for the position and the selection
process is performed without any discriminative intentions.
Racial discrimination is something which is practiced continuously in almost all
organizations from the history. Now during the period of 2000?s due to the
enforcement of laws and regulations to eliminate the discriminations it has been
reduced. But it is not surprising that such racial discriminations are happening in
2005. The organizations hesitate to hire the black but they are forced to do it.
According to the investigation of the lower court there are no qualified and
experienced African Americans in the city so as the meet the company
requirements. The organization has also provided the position of assistant pokers
on contract basis to the African Americans which are acceptable. The court cannot
cause any harm to the profitability of the companies for eliminating the
Ch7 S was hired as a consultant physician at the RD medical center. She was hired to
supervise a team of doctors, nurses and other staff. Later her location was closed
and she was transferred to Bayamon. There were two camps offering the same
facilities in Bayamon: Center 308 and Center 705. S was appointed as the Director
of center 308. During this time, R, supervisor of S made a comment that PR
Doctors are no good and Dominican doctors are far better.
In this case S has to file for the national origin discrimination as she was basically
from Puerto Rica and the person who passed the comment belongs to Dominican
Republic and is her higher up. The obligation of filing of the suit has been borne by
S as she is the one who is said to be the victim of the national origin
In case, the individual who assumed her responsibilities was of the same national
origin as she was, it had been any other person other than S who has possibly Assignments 5 experienced discrimination on the basis of national origin. The fact that, S is of
Puerto Rico, R chose to express dissent and discrimination. If it is D, another
person from Dominican Republic then there would not have been any national
The best way an employer can cut down on such issues is by observing a strict
policy against discrimination and by training employees on cross culture learning.
Once a strict policy is introduced against national origin discrimination and proper
training is provided to the employees will lead to better cross culture relationship
among employees. Ch8
In spite various debates, legislations and amendments in favor of gender equality in
the twentieth century, still there are cases of obvious gender discriminations. It is
very surprising that women are given lesser priority at workplace in 21st century.
The City Fire fighter?s case also indicates that gender stereotyping and prejudices
are ingrained deeper than expected, and legislations alone cannot eradicate the
discrimination psyche. .
The managers at the City should have attended to the requests of the women, and
have made arrangements to source the fitting protection gear and built the
It is evident from the case that the City Fire fighting administration did not have
valid reasons for denying properly fitting protective gears and amenities for
women. The administration may have postponed the sourcing of protective cloths
and building facilities for women due to lack of resources. But, the City did not
heed to the requests of women for eight years and have not even attempted to take
action in that direction. The circumstances indicate underlying gender
discrimination as the cause of negligence.
Any evidence that indicate the presence of tangible action such as demotion,
reassignments, etc. will prompt the court to deny the opportunity for affirmative
defense. Though the court is not entitled to provide space for defense by the
employer, in cases where the employer has taken substantial care to prevent and
manage harassment issues is likely to receive favor from the court.
An employee always has the right to plead for justice in instances of sexual
harassment, even in the absence of tangible employment action. But, if the Assignments 6 employee delays to complain or fail to make use of the anti-harassment scheme,
the claim for justice would weaken. An employee always has to report the
harassment experiences to the appropriate authority as quickly as possible.
Tangible loss of benefits to the employee due the discriminatory stance by the
supervisor or immediate superior of the employee is construed as violation of
employment contract. In cases where there is no obvious loss of benefits, but
employee claims to have experienced sexual harassment at job, have the merits to
allow the employer for affirmative defense. Ch10
Though the Title VII do not include affinity clause, the present case has reference
to gender discrimination and abuse. In one go the rude employees are abusing the
victim using gender prejudices. By calling the colleague a female whore, they are
indirectly abusing the womanhood, and actively engaging in verbal abuse and
assault. The courts? interpretation of Title VII and its application to this case is
It is difficult to suggest why the mangers at AZ did not take necessary steps to
prevent the abuse to Sanchez. One reason could be that though the employee
complained about the verbal abuse from the colleagues, he moved and worked with
them as usual, and did not seek any help from the professional to overcome the
effects of the abuse. Mere written complaint may have considered as trivial and did
not matter as worthy case.
First thing a manger would have done was to verify the facts from all employees
who witnessed the abusive treatment, the victim, and the bullies. The manger
should apply his/her common sense to understand the gravity of the victim?s issue.
Second step would be to warn the perpetrators and reprimand them. Finally involve
the senior management in deciding the next action. Ch12
An employer should test the potential employees on an individual basis if the test
result shows the BFOQ for a position. The tests for hiring an applicant would be
valid under one of the following condition- Assignments 7 ? The test can be conducted related to the person?s skills, knowledge, ability or
? To determine Job relevant characteristics like decision making or reasoning
? The test would confirm a person?s physical, mental and emotional ability to
perform the job.
If some tests are critical to measure the ability of a person to perform his job
successfully, then the employer needs to conduct the tests. An employer cannot
skip the test by presenting the argument that cost of tests would impose great
burden on them.
Person C?s opinion creates a distinction between the terms ?reasonable necessity?
and reasonableness. Reasonable necessity for a business is the factors that are of
highly importance for them. For example safety and security of employees as well
as the customers are reasonable necessity for a company. On the other hand
reasonableness refers to logical activities or factors that are not of highly important
for the employer.
In the current case the analysis of the Seventh and Eighth circuit is more
persuasive than the Tenth circuit of ADA. An employer should be free to offer a
vacant position to the most qualified candidate for the job. He should not be forced
to accommodate a disabled employee to a job if he has a better alternative.
In this case the employer received a clear win because he has sufficient evidence
that the employee it selected for the vacant position is more qualified than the
disabled employee. It also proves that no discrimination was made with the
employee having disability. Therefore the employer held in this case should clearly
mention in its policies regarding the accommodation it can provide to the disabled
employees. It would avoid further confusions or claims.
From this case it is clear that ADA does not forces an employer to provide
accommodation to the disabled employees by accepting any undue hardship or
loss. A disabled employee cannot be accommodated at a vacant position if he/she
does not have required qualification and skills.
Person Y should not have prevailed on his state law claim of invasion because he
does not have sufficient evidence to prove that his employer has invaded his Assignments 8 privacy intentionally. Person Y?s medical statement was mistakenly disclosed to his
mother. Therefore the employer cannot be sued on this basis.
Even if the main clerk and person Y?s would have been read the document the case
would not be decided differently, because in that case also the disclosure will not
be publically at large. Hence the public invasion of privacy could not be claimed.
An individual can prove that the employer has publically invaded his privacy at
large, if a sensitive document of the employee is read by the entire employees
working in a company. Even if ll the supervisors of the company would get to
know the information it cannot be treated as public disclosure of information.
The case is a dispute between the Union members and the management of G
Constructions to come for a collective bargaining to resolve an employee?s issue.
Since the management did not respond to any of the requests the union approached
the court, the court has given a ruling in the favor of the union ordering the
company to go for a collective bargaining agreement. Even then the management
refused to budge and finally the national labor board issued an order that the
company management must meet with the union to discuss and come an agreement
The court has made the right decision in this case and it is so based on the
? The Company management did not comply with the rules and regulations of
collective bargaining clause,
? The company did not oblige to provide the information sought by the union thus
breaching the code of conduct, and
? The company failed to meet its obligations by refusing to meet the union.
The management?s actions in this case are not very surprising. The actions suggest
that the management is not interested in disclosing certain information which it
believes will put them into trouble and wants to hide it from the union. Thus, the
management chose the best way is to not to meet the union.
The employer?s strategy makes no sense at all as all it means by the strategy is
postponing the trouble. They are very well aware of the consequences of
neglecting the order of the National Labor Board?s directives or the Court?s
ruling?s but they chose to put a deaf ear to the rulings. It is apparent that there is no
particular strategy in avoiding the meetings the objective seems to be that of
postponement. Assignments 9 Ch16
Company V might have avoided the liability under ERISA if it had avoided its
deceiving practices and lying statements. The company has given false assurance
to its employees to change their benefits plan that is considered to give breach of
An employee needs to have the basic information regarding their rights and
employer liability. It would help the employee to ensure that he or she knows all of
the facts relevant to a question that was given in the case.
Company V wanted to discharge the benefit plans of its employees working in
money losing divisions. Therefore he influenced the employees of these divisions
to change their benefit plans. Hence, using fraudulent practices Company V wanted
to get rid of the benefits and compensation plans of the employees working in lossmaking division.
This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020
Buy this answer for only: $15
This attachment is locked
We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website www.aceyourhomework.com (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)
Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
About this QuestionSTATUS
Sep 18, 2020EXPERT
GET INSTANT HELP/h4>
We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.
You can also use these solutions:
- As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
- As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
- For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?
Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround
Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.
WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN YOUR SET DEADLINE.