Employment Law Case Study: Race Discrimination and Title VII

This case study analyzes a scenario of potential race discrimination in an employment setting. The case involves an employee, Franklin, who was dismissed from China Lights restaurant for tardiness, while other employees of Chinese ancestry were not. The analysis focuses on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in employment. The document examines relevant court cases such as Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Lau v. Nichols, and McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc., to support the argument that the employer may be liable for race discrimination. It highlights the importance of fair treatment and equal opportunity in the workplace, with managerial tips emphasizing the need for unbiased implementation of employment terms. The conclusion states that the employer is likely liable for race discrimination against Franklin, and he has the right to seek enforcement of his civil rights through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

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

1
EMPLOYMENT LAW
Answer 1
Issue
In the given situation the issue which needs to be identified in relation to the study is that
whether the employer China Lights restaurant have discriminated against Franklin vase on his
race.
Analysis
The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides the major federal laws dealing
with racial discrimination in the USA with respect to employment. The laws prohibit any
employer from taken disciplinary actions or firing the employees based on their race or failing to
provide them with same benefits as provided to others.
In the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228, 235 (1989) it had been stated
by the court that where the employer’s decision making is allowed to be affected due to the race
of a person, the ultimate burden of proof to justify the decision is on the employer.
In the case of Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974) it has been ruled by the court that an
employer is liable to racial discrimination in situation where there is a failure to provide a person
the same benefits as provides to others belonging to another race.
In the case of McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 267, 277-78
(E.D.Tex.1999) complaints had been brought by the defendant that they have been subjected to
discrimination based upon their race by the employer as they had been denied of training and
promotional activity within the organization.

2
EMPLOYMENT LAW
In this case a class action had also been brought against the defendant that they indulged
in discrimination against black people by not giving them equal opportunity at work.
As there was unequal treatment involved in the situation towards as compared to other
people working in the company the court held the employer liable for race discrimination.
Managerial Tips
It has been ruled in the situation that Franklin works for the Chinese Light Restaurant.
Therefore in the given situation there is an employment relationship between the parties and a
claim for race discrimination in employment may arise. It has been further stated that Franklin
who belongs to an English ancestry has been dismissed by the employer for coming late to office
within a sixty day period according to the policy of the employer. In the same situation where Jin
Pan and Dongping Jiang are coming late to office very frequently they have not been dismissed
by the employer.
Here the employer belongs to a Chinese ancestry and the other employees who have not been
dismissed also belong to Chinese ancestry. Thus it is clear that as Franklin belongs to a different
race he has been subjected to unfair treatment. If the treatment was fair he should also have not
been terminated for coming late as Jin Pan and Dongping Jiang 0r Jin Pan and Dongping Jiang
should also have been terminated for the purpose of coming late. Thus in the given situation it is
clear that the employer has acted against the principles of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 by subjecting Franklin to unfair treatment as compared to others. Therefore it can be stated
that Frank has the Right to move the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for
enforcement of his civil rights against the workplace discrimination faced by him. It can be
stated that an employer must not treat any employee unfavorably as compared to any other

3
EMPLOYMENT LAW
employee in order to ensure fairness within the workplace. It has to be made sure that all the
employees within an organization receive equal and fair treatment. The management must also
not be strict while implementing the terms of the employment. They must not have biasness or
prejudice against any employee in order to ensure that everyone receives fair and equal
treatment.
Conclusion
In this case the employer is liable of race discrimination against Franklin

4
EMPLOYMENT LAW
References
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974)
McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 267, 277-78 (E.D.Tex.1999)
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228, 235 (1989)
The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964