I want it to be done in IRAC way that is why I added the second doc.

Employment discrimination (Case Study)

Name: samsondeen olayiwola

Issue

The concern, in Ms. Nevins case, is whether the action of the Promotion Committee to deny Ms. Nevins a promotion to Chief Accounts Executive surmounts to an Ac t of Employment Discrimination.

Rule

The issues of discrimination are handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The person that believes that they have experienced an incident of discrimination should file a discrimination charge with the EEOC before filing a workplace discrimination lawsuit against the employer. An alternative involves filing a complaint with the local anti-discrimination agencies commonly known as the Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPA). Filing with FEPA leads to an automatic dual filing with EEOC. Those that seek to file a formal complaint have 15 calendar days after the receipt of “Notice of Right to File a Discrimination Complaint” from the EEOC (Connolly Jr, Connolly, & Feinstein, 2018).

The Federal and State Laws Protect against Discrimination . The employer is restricted from making discriminatory business decisions which include workplace promotion decisions. The Disabilities Act prevent denying promotion based on one's disability. Age Discrimination Act protects against denying people promotions based on their age . Also, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects discriminatory promotion decisions based on religion, race, nationality or gender (Hersch, & Shinall, 2015). The glass ceiling discrimination case requires the complainant to show that they belong to a protected class, the person proves that they qualified for the promotion and it was given to a person with similar qualifications.

Denial of promotion is not discrimination if the complainant cannot prove the discrimination glass ceiling threshold (Powell, & Butterfield, 2015). The employee complaining is not a member of a protected class, the employee was not qualified for the position, or it was given to a person with better qualifications . The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff that the discrimination occurred when the employer made the promotion decisions.

Application

The employment decision at Ms. Nevins’s workplace was adverse . According to her supervisor, Ms. Nevins was the most qualified candidate for the job position. Ms. Nevins is said to be the driving force on the success of her departmen t. A selection another candidate aside from MS. Nevins is not ideal for the company.

The decision to deny Ms. Nevins the promotion was based on gender . The recommendations from the Promotions Committee and the Supervisor cl early show the gender element in the promotion decisions . In summary , the Promotion Committee showed that Ms. Nevins espoused more masculine characteristics than they could accept. The Supervisor also advised Ms. Nevins to wear make-up and present herself in a manner they thought befitted a woma n.

The employer provided a non-discriminatory reason that Ms. Nevins was too harsh and used profane language on her colleagues. The employer further claimed that Ms. Nevins did not get along with the other employees. The employer tried to sugarcoat the situation by giving one of the five promotion positions to a woman.

The employer used the character concerns for Ms. Nevins as a pretext for employment discrimination. Some members of the team accept that other male employees showed similar characters as Ms. Nevins. Male workers were allowed to use profane languages but not Ms. Nevins since she was a woman. The Promotion of single woman in five promotion position is also not sufficient to alleviate the gender discrimination concerns in the company.

Conclusion

The case shows that Ms. Nevins was denied promotion based on gender. She can successfully file a discrimination case against the company since she has adequate legal grounds. Ms. Nevins is part of a protected group by being a woman. Ms. Nevins qualified for the position. Furthermore, Ms. Nevins was the best-qualified candidate in the company and any person given the position was less qualified.

References

Connolly Jr, W. B., Connolly, M. J., & Feinstein, J. (2018). A practical guide to equal employment opportunity. Law Journal Press.

Hersch, J., & Shinall, J. B. (2015). Fifty years later: The legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 424-456.

Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2015). The glass ceiling: what have we learned 20 years on?. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(4), 306-326.