Age Discrimination in Employment Law

RACE

Throughout history people have been discrimination on because of the color of their skin. The views of some are that people are not all equal. The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has tried to make it illegal to discriminate or punish any individuals because of their color. All people should have the same rights, but even in today's society this is not the case.

One case study that represents this issue in the 20th century is the cases of EEOC v. Victoria's Secret Stores. In this litigation the defendant charged that she was placed in a hostile working environment because of her race and she they failed to accommodate her needs to attend religion services. This takes on two violations of the Title VII Act, the violation of Race and Religion. The complaint for brought to higher managers but nothing was done to correct the situation therefore she quit her job. The case was resolved through a consent decree; this is an agreement between both parties and therefore has to be submitted to a court to become legally binding. She was offered a payment of $179,300.

RELIGION

The rights of freedom of religion have been argued since time. In today's society Schools System's as well as State and Government Offices are arguing whether any organization or school has the right to say a prayer at the beginning of the day or opening of a political session. With the creation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, individuals are protected against any type of religious discrimination. This Act assists individuals in the workforce to be able to work without any discrimination concerning their religious beliefs. Some Religious Groups are required to wear certain attire, where others may have to take certain times of the day to pray, where others may be prohibited from joining certain organization.

This is an example of a case that represents a violation of a persons religions rights, EEOC v. Union Independiente Autentica de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (UIA) and Rule 19 Defendants Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA) and Ondeo de Puerto Roco. C.A. No. 96 2650 (PG) (D.P.R. June 12, 2003). In this particular case he was asked to join the labor union and upon his disagreement, he was terminated. In his claim with the EEOC stated he could not join the labor union due to his religious belief and he was also not provided reasonable accommodations for his religious practice. The EEOC won the summary judgment, but UIA appealed and the case was sent back to the district court for trail. It took two years to resolve the litigation and UIA lost and had to pay $75,000 in back pay and reinstate the defendant. The also had to amend their policy concerning religious individuals joining the union and provide accommodations for religious members.

The group