Employment Law Assignment: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Cases

This homework assignment delves into the complexities of employment law, specifically examining affirmative action plans and instances of discrimination. The assignment analyzes two key scenarios: the validity of an affirmative action plan implemented by Fairview County Public Library, and the legality of Quality Movers' rejection of an applicant, Paku. The analysis explores relevant legal concepts, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense, referencing landmark cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger, Gratz v. Bollinger, and Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. The assignment provides managerial tips for handling such situations and concludes that the affirmative action plan in the first case is invalid and the rejection of Paku was valid. The document emphasizes the importance of promoting diversity and ensuring non-discriminatory practices in employment, offering insights into how companies should handle potential discrimination claims.

Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW
Employment Law
Name of the Student
Name of the university
Author note

1
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Answer 2
Issue
The issue in this case is to determine the validity of the affirmative action plan which is to be
taken by Fairview County Public Library.
Analysis
Affirmative action is provided for the purpose of giving equal opportunity to a
disadvantaged group. This action is done by a process which is known as positive discrimination.
In this situation the employer deliberately discriminates in the process of employment against a
particular group of employees by preferring another group over them. An affirmative action plan
can be initiated by a company in case they gave more than 50 employees.
The court only upholds an affirmative action plan when the situation is just and necessary
and there is no express laws which are applied to determine that an affirmative action plan is
valid or not. They are included for the purpose of promoting diversity within the institution.
The implementation of an affirmative action plan in America has been subjected to a long
history of debate and controversy. In the case of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) the court held that
an affirmative action taken by the defendant was valid and to the contrary it was held by the
court in the case of Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) that using gender or racial quotas in relation to
college admission had been ruled unconstitutional by the court.
In the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978) it had
been ruled by the court that the university cannot offer employment or admission based on race

2
EMPLOYMENT LAW
of a person and instead the university could set goals and timetables for diversity. In the United
States setting of any quota in relation to the company has been abolished and the companies are
not legally mandated to set any specific quota in relation to race or gender in employment.
Managerial Tips
In the given situation the validity of the affirmative action plan which had been
introduced by Fairview County Public Library in relation to discriminating against women and
promoting men. In this situation they want to increase the number of Males in the supervising
category. Gender is going to be the basis of this affirmative action plan by the library. In this
situation it had been there is no express legislation to determine the constitutional validity of the
plan. Whether the plan is valid or not has to be analyzed by the court based on the circumstances
and the needs for inclusion and diversity.
In the given situation it is clear that the number of male supervisors in the university is very less
irrespective of 25% of all employees being men in the branch. However they are only placing the
affirmative plan in place so that they can have more men in supervising position. This situation is
not going to enhance any diversity or inclusion within the organization. in addition not providing
promotion based on merit would be an act of gender discrimination in this case and the
affirmative action plan would not be able to act as a defense. Female candidates who were
rejected on the ground of gender discrimination has the right to file a claim before the the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for the violation of the provision as stated in the
Civil Rights Act 1964. It can be mentioned that the Civil Rights Act 1964 is a landmark statute
in the United States and the statute outlaws any discrimination made on the grounds of race,
color, sex or national origin. An affirmative plan should only introduced by an organization to
promote diversity within the workplace and not for any other reason. The management of the
library must ensure that they give equal preference to both male and female candidates applying
for jobs.

3
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Conclusion
Thus the affirmative action plan in this case is invalid.
Answer 3
Issue
The issue in this case is to indentify whether quality Movers rejection of Paku’s employment is
valid or not.
Analysis
The Civil Rights Act 1964 along with common law provisions governs the provisions in
relation to employment discrimination in US. A person in relation to the federal laws do not have
the right to discriminate against those person who have a special characteristics including sex,
race, religion, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability, genetic information and citizenship
status in the course of employment or in relation to the process of recruitment and selection.
However an employer is provided with certain defenses against a claim of discrimination
which may be applied to defeat a discrimination claim. One of such defenses is the bona
fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) which is in relation to an attribute or quality which an
employer may consider in relation to the retention and hiring of employment. This quality would
considered as discrimination in other context.
Provisions in relation BGOQ are consisted in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In the case of Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981) it
had been ruled by the court that only the lack customer satisfaction cannot be used as a BFOQ

4
EMPLOYMENT LAW
defense. Thus, if customers prefer female attendants over males, it would not be a defense to hire
only female employees.
In the case of Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 559 (S.D. Fla.
1970) it had been ruled by the court that the defense of BFOQ is only applicable in situation
where there is a genuine requirement in relation to such specific characteristics. For instance it
may not constitute discrimination where the employer only hires black employees for the
purpose of a role of a black person in a movie.
Managerial Tips
In the given scenario, a claim of discrimination is prima faice evident. This is because
Paku belong to a community of Indonesian ancestry and he has not been hired as a mover
although he has martial art experience and is very strong. From the perspective of Paku there is a
clear case of race discrimination as he may feel that although he is strong he is not selected for
the position as he is of an Indonesian ancestry. However in the given situation it viewing it from
the perspective of quality mover it is clear that there is no discrimination as he does not meet the
requirement for the position.
In this case it has to be determined that whether the perspective of Paku or of Qulaity movers is
correct. Applying the provisions provided by the BFOQ in this case it can be stated that this
defense may be claimed by quality movers. This is because they have a genuine requirement as
provided in the case of Wilson. In addition they are not doing so because of any hatred towards
the community off customer satisfaction and Paku is not selected only because he does not meet
the height criteria. Therefore it can be stated in relation to the chose case study that Paku has not
been discriminated on any of the grounds as the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibits. He has not been

5
EMPLOYMENT LAW
selected due to his short height. Height was the relevant requirement criterion for the job.
Therefore it can be advised to the management that while rejecting a potential employee it must
be ensured that such person is below the national standard required for the position and such
person is explained the exact reason for is rejection in order to avoid any misunderstanding
between the employee and employer. An employee who has been rejected for failing to meet any
of the criterions of the job must be explained that he was not discriminated against any of the
grounds which are mentioned in the Civil Rights Act 1964.
Conclusion
The defense of BFOQ is applicable in this case

6
EMPLOYMENT LAW
References
Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 559 (S.D. Fla. 1970)
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981)