2nd Peer Response: Betheena Baker Analysis

2nd Peer Response: Betheena Baker
Franklin, a U.S. born individual of English ancestry, works for the China Lights restaurant, which is owned and operated by two U.S. citizens of Chinese ancestry. Franklin’s coworkers Jin Pan and Dongping Jiang, also U.S. citizens of Chinese ancestry, are late for work virtually every day, but no action is taken against them for this, even though the owners are aware of Jin and Dongping’s tardiness, and even though there is a stated workplace policy that an employee reporting to work late, more than once in a sixty day period will be dismissed. Franklin reports to work late twice, 55 days apart, and he is dismissed.
Case Facts:
◦China Lights Restaurant is a US business;
◦Owners: Two US Citizens with Chinese Ancestry
◦Franklin, US Citizen with English Ancestry
◦Jin Pan and Dongping Jiang, US Citizens with Chinese Ancestry
◦Franklin is dismissed for being late to work twice in a 55 day window
◦Co-workers are late every day and no action has been taken
◦China Lights restaurant has a stated policy that tardiness more than once in a 60 day period will be dismissed
Franklin believes that he has been discriminated against on the basis of national origin. This is a discrimination against one of the protected classes of the Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964. “According to Bennett-Alexander, Title VII prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, training, promotion, discipline, or other workplace decision on the basis of an employee or applicant’s race, color, gender, national origin or religion.” (Bennett-Alexander, Hartman, 2015, p.111). It also makes illegal any attempt to segregate, classify, or limit the opportunities of any employees for reasons related to any of the above. This includes promotion, compensation, job training, or any other aspect of employment. Title VII applies to any employer with 15 or more employees in both the public and private sector including federal, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor unions, and training programs. (Lowen, L. n.d.). China Lights Restaurant is a private company and can employ at will. However, they must comply with the requirements of Title VII against one of the protected groups. According to J.A. Mandell, “It is universally acknowledged that plaintiffs must prove that their defendant-employers employed, at the time of the alleged discrimination, fifteen or more employees to make out a successful Title VII claim”. “…Title VII’s basic statute of limitations is 180 days from precipitating event…” (Bennett-Alexander, Hartman, 2015, p.123).
◦Was dismissed for being late twice in 55 days
◦States that co-workers Jin Pan and Dongping Jiang, US Citizens with Chinese Ancestry, are late virtually every day and no action is taken against them.
◦Franklin feels discriminated on the basis of national origin, according to Title VII
◦Owners of China Light Restaurant, US Citizens with Chinese Ancestry
◦China Lights restaurant has a stated policy that tardiness more than once in a 60 day period will be dismissed
◦China Lights does not seem to have a reason to use BFOQ. A “bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)-permissible discrimination if legally necessary for an employer’s particular business” (Bennett-Alexander, Hartman, 2015, p.834). Being of Chinese ancestry is not a requirement for the job.
◦China Lights now have to provide proof that their reason for dismissing Franklin has no non-discriminatory basis,
Claim Validity
Franklin could file a claim of disparate treatment. USLegal.com refers to disparate treatment, in the employment context, refers to when a person is treated differently from others. The different treatment is based on one or more of the protected factors and the different treatment is intentional. This is distinguished from the concept of “adverse impact”, which may be unintentional and applies to a protected group rather than an individual. Franklin’s employer dismissed him for being late twice in a 60 day window but no action was taken against his co-workers.
There are certain criteria that must be met in order for a valid case to be filed.
◦Does Franklin have evidence to support disparate treatments on the basis of national origin has taken place? Franklin must prove one of the protected classes have been violated.
According to the US Equal Opportunity Commission national origin discrimination involves treating people (applicants or employees) unfavorably because they are from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not). The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment. (Gottschling, 2016)
In a court case of EEOC v. Mesa Systems, Inc., 11-cv-01201-RJS-BCW, filed in U.S District Court for the District of in Fayette County. “The EEOC also alleged that employees of various national origins were subjected to a restrictive language policy that had a disparate impact against Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders. The EEOC further claimed that a number of employees suffered retaliation, including terminations and reductions in hours, after two employee petitions and other complaints were submitted to management about the national origin discrimination. Mesa denied it violated the law. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ” The largest settlement in the state of Utah was reached in the amount of $450,000.00. (Gottschling, 2016)
If Franklin proves his claim is valid, the EEOC will seek to resolve the issue through the conciliation process? Franklin could receive a favorably ruling as in the case of EEOC vs Mesa Systems, Inc.
Management Tips:
I would suggest to China Lights that all management staff and employees undergo cultural and diversity training, along with continuation education discrimination in the workplace. . A review of the Title VII Civil Rights Acts of 1964 is in order. In addition to this, China lights needs to consistently enforce the stated policy on tardiness. I would also recommend that China Lights review the case of EEOC v. Mesa Systems, Inc. As a part of the settlement Mesa Systems agreed to extensive injunctive relief, including training; revision of policies; the rescission of the restrictive language policy; apologies to the victims of discrimination; anti-discrimination notice posting; reporting to the EEOC; and programs to stop any future violations of Title VII. Should China Lights adopt these practices they can avoid or at minimize these types of discrimination complaints in the future.
Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. P. (2015). Employment law for business. Place of publication not identified: Irwin Mcgraw-Hill
Figure 2f from: Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7720. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7720. (n.d.). doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720.figure2f
Legal, I. U. (n.d.). USLegal. Retrieved January 28, 2018, from https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/disparate-treatment/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *