Labor And Employment Law Assessment Answer
Key Topics
- Case Name (Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., 2015)
- Facts
- Issue
- Holding
- Case Name (Harris v. Quinn, 2014)
- Facts
- Issue
- Holding
- Rationale
- Case Name (EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC, 2015)
Labor & Employment Law related case.
Case Name (Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., 2015)
Facts
An action was brought against the employer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and alleged that the employer is in violation of Title VII in recruitment, by allowing sex discrimination tactics. A partial summary judgement was moved by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), to defense put forward by the employer. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Court denied reconsideration motion filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), but allowed interlocutory appeal, on question that the alleged contention i.e. the failure on the part of the employer to conciliation was a matter for judicial review. The matter was revised and remanded and the certiorari was allowed by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Hamilton, Circuit Judge.
Issue
Whether, Title VII withdraws the courts’ authority in determining EEOC’ fulfillment of the duty in order to attempt conciliation of claims.
Holding
The statutory obligation for attempting to conciliate with the employer, as a prerequisite to a Title VII action can be reviewed by the Court, though the scope is narrow, since there is abundancy of discretionary measures available to EEOC, and the letters so sent by EEOC to the employer cannot be held sufficient, in satisfaction of the obligation on the part of EEOC.
Rationale
The limitation for the confidentiality at the time when the employer puts conciliation at issue should be deemed waived and in order to affect a waiver, the concerned persons must give written consent, that is not only the employer but also the complainant. So, the if the employer decides to contest the EEOC’s conciliation efforts, it cannot in no way waive the statutory rights of the employees’.
Case Name (Harris v. Quinn, 2014)
Facts
The personal assistants, who were not from any union provided home-care, to disabled individuals based on the Medicaid-waiver programs, sued Governor along with the three other unions, and challenged mandatory fair share fees paid to union. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, dismissed those claims, which were appealed against. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Manion, Circuit Judge, affirmed in part and remanded and the Certiorari was granted.
Issue
Whether, Non-union home-care personal assistants, can be considered as state employees, so that the fees so paid to union representing such assistants, serve a compelling state interest.
Holding
The state employees who did not join a public-sector union, was compelled to pay an agency fee to support union work is related to the collective-bargaining process but, this principle cannot and did not extend to the personal assistants or private-sector employees., and Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (PLRA), requires the non-union Medicaid-funded home-care personal assistants to pay fees to union representing such assistants, for the agency-fee provision, but this cannot be equated to the serving of the compelling state interest since that can also be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms, and so is in violation of the First Amendment (First Amendment- Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition, 1791).
Rationale
The unions are permitted to collect fees from nonmembers which consequently prevent nonmembers from free-riding on the union’s efforts by sharing the employment benefits so obtained by the union’s collective bargaining without sharing the costs incurred, are considered as insufficient to overcome and hence are detriment to First Amendment (First Amendment- Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition, 1791).
Case Name (EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC, 2015)
Facts
A job was refused to Muslim-American woman, Samantha Elauf by the defendant for wearing headscarf. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), brought Title VII action for religious discrimination, and alleged retailer’s failure in not accommodating religious practice. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, granted EEOC’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, and awarded $20,000 in damages. On appeal by the retailer, The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, reversed and remanded with instructions by granting Certiorari.
Issue
Whether, the defendant Abercrombie & Fitch, intentionally discriminated against a particular religious group for wearing headscarves.
Holding
The Supreme Court, held that a job applicant who sought to prove a Title VII disparate treatment claim must show that the need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in the prospective employer’s adverse decision, and cannot rely or maintain that the employer actually knew that the applicant’s practice was a religious practice in requirement of an accommodation.
Rationale
In order to bring a claim, under against the employer’s violation of the disparate treatment provision of Title VII, which prohibits discrimination, the claimant must show that there is a need for religious accommodation, and must not assume that that employer knew it beforehand.
References
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC, 14-86 (Supreme Court of the United States 2015).
First Amendment- Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition. (1791). First Amendment- Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
Harris v. Quinn, 134 S.Ct. 2618 (2014) (2014).
Mach Mining, LLC v. E.E.O.C., 135 S.Ct. 1645 (2015) (2015).
