reply to following thread In Case 2, Edward Roberts, a black truck driver, applied in-person for a truck driving position in response to a newspaper ad. He listed 22 months of driving experience, even though he had over ten years of experience but did not list this due to lack of available space on the application. After not receiving any response for his application, he later found out that multiple drivers, all white, had been hired for the same role. The company stated in response that no job opening exist, and Roberts filed a discrimination lawsuit against the company.This case violates EEO (Equal Opportunity) Laws, stated in the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the American Association of University Women, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments” (2019). The EEOC states that this title was updated with The Civil Rights Act of 1991 to include recent case law amendments and states that, in the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) that “even that where a plaintiff demonstrates that an employer was motivated by discrimination, the employer can still escape liability by proving that it would have taken the same action based on lawful motives” (2019).The court must determine whether the trucking company falls within the scope of EEO laws, given the size of the organization. This organizational size, typically 15 employees or largely, can be determined by the number of employees with “whom the organization had an employment relationship in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during the current or preceding year.” The court must also consider disparate treatment or intentional discrimination that the company knowingly and intentionally mistreating this individual on the basis of race (Haneman, Judge, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2015). According to Best, et al. “EEO law generally conceptualizes discrimination as intentional, disregards its structural forms, and fails to recognize how employment practices sustain patterns of market‐based discrimination” (2011).Without knowing the size of the company and expressed intent to violate EEO laws, it is difficult to take a stance on where the judge would rule in this case. Given the fact that eight employees, all white, had been hired between the end of March and May of the same year, and was once again advertising job openings in June, it would lead me to believe that the company size was over fifteen employees in size and was a growing company. The company can have difficulties when it comes to proving that they would have made the same decisions based on lawful motivates given that the eight white employees hired during the period of time Roberts was seeking a position had less driving experience than Roberts did when applying for the position. As the judge, I would be more determined to rule in favor of the plaintiff that in fact, there was unlawful discrimination against Roberts on behalf of the trucking company.ReferencesAmerican Association of University Women. (2019). Know your rights: title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. AAUW. Retrieved from https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/title-vii/.Best, R. K., Edelman, L. B., Krieger, L. H., & Eliason, S. R. (2011). Multiple disadvantages: An empirical test of intersectionality theory in EEO litigation. Law & Society Review, 45(4), 991-1025. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00463.xEqual Opportunity Employment Commission. (2019). The Civil Rights Act of 1991. EEOC. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/1990s/civilrights.htmlHaneman, H.G. III, Judge, T.A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2015). Staffing Organizations (8th ed.). Mishawka, IN: Pangloss Industries, McGraw-Hill.
