The Case Eeoc V. Kaplan

Bent, J.R., (2011). The telltale sign of discrimination: probabilities, information asymmetries, and the systematic disparate treatment theory, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 2011, Volume 44, Issue 4, p. 797

The proof of discriminatory intent is not required and although the court concluded that TVA’s processes with interviewing had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates in general, the court disagreed, citing the “lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a “prima facie” case” (Walsh, 2010). Dunlap did not prove, within the evidence presented, that the procedures TVA used were practiced prior. Although the district court concluded that “TVA's interview process had been manipulated to exclude African American candidates” (Walsh, 2010), the court of appeals disagreed because it did not believe there was analytical data that blatantly prove how any protected group was impacted adversely. The court found that Dunlap can only challenge his specific interview processes and not an entire group.

The mission of the EEOC, as set forth in its strategic plan, is to promote equal opportunity in employment through administrative and judicial enforcement of the federal civil rights laws, education and technical assistance.

EEOC’s role in this case was to file lawsuit against the employer (Exel) on behalf of the

The road to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 74 (1954)), is littered with many Supreme Court cases that have battled for equality in education. The Fourteenth Amendment strengthened the legal rights of newly slaves and became the stomping ground for many Supreme Court decisions.

It is imperative to note that the case of Brown v Board of Education is based on a chronological history of the fight towards realization of human rights in the United States. This essay shall begin by discussing the history chronologically and accessing it whilst the essay goes along. It is clear that even though the United States constitution guaranteed equal rights to all men, the issue of slavery prevailed under violation of other human rights. It was only after the Civil War that slave trade was considered unlawful. It was not until 1865 that the Thirteenth Amendment was put into effect to help bring to an end slave trade. The need to strengthen the legal rights of slaves was noticed and by 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was used to

On August 19, 2008, Mr. Contonius Gill filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC claiming race discrimination and retaliation for being discharged for complaining about racial harassment. On August 10, 2008 Mr. Gill filed an Employment Discrimination Complaint with the North Carolina Department of Labor. On June 2011, the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a single complaint alleging that Mr. Gill, plaintiff, was subjected to a racially hostile environment from May 2007 through June 2008, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The matter was filed against A.G. Widenhouse, defendant.

Back in 1898, the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson allowed states to set segregation laws, and it created the term “separate but equal”. What transpired were public services such as restrooms, drinking fountains, restaurants, and methods of transportation that were exclusive to white, or colored citizens. Over half a century later, the case of Brown v. Board of Education turned that term upside down, and declaring that it violated the fourteenth amendment for people of all colors, including black and whites, to be forced away from one another in schools. No longer were there schools primarily for African Americans, the public school system was in the process of becoming a melting pot of people of all genders, colors, and backgrounds.

It has been argued that Fisher III neither provides any substantive additions to Equal Protection Clause (EPC) Jurisprudence, nor any guidance to lower courts how to apply Grutter and determine whether a race-based admissions program is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. Danielle Holley-Walker, in her article published in winter of 2014, explores the impact Fisher III has on race-conscious admissions programs, and argues that Fisher III enhances the strict scrutiny analysis, especially when compared to Grutter. Moreover, she argues “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent meaningfully highlights one of the most pernicious flaws in the current Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence, which is that strict scrutiny standard encourages universities to make their admissions process opaque instead of transparent and that there are many benefits that flow from having a transparent, race-conscious admissions program.”

When a University implements special admissions requirements, like race and ethnicity, the Court called “ for the most exacting judicial scrutiny” when reviewing cases of this nature (Bakke v U.S.). For this, the rational-basis test is faulty. Strict-scrutiny is prescribed to examine race cases.

The Roberts V. The City of Boston was very similar the case of Brown V. The Board of Education in that it was a case’s subject was about the need for integration of the public-school systems. The Roberts V. The City of Boston trial exhibits very striking similarities with the Brown V. Board of Education as well as being the catalyst for other important events related to the future trial. The idea of “separate but equal” was first introduced by the Massachusetts Supreme court after their decision on the trial and this statement would continue to be used by defenders of segregation for the next one hundred years. The statement is meant to portray the idea that if both sides had similar public goods to go to then there is no fear that one group

Brown v. Board of Education. The court case that determined that separate but equal educational facilities are inherently unequal (i.e., separate but equal is not okay). The plaintiffs, various African American children, were denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws that permitted or required segregation by race. The plaintiffs sued on the basis that they should be allowed to attend the public schools in their communities without being segregated. It is important to note that this case is a compilation of several different cases from Kansas, South Carolina, D.C., Virginia, and Delaware. Nevertheless, this court case focused on one African American student, Linda Brown. She was chosen to be the face of the plaintiff,

Established in 1909 as an attempt to combat the racial hatred and discrimination that plagued the era the NAACP emerged. By supporting such cases such as Moore V Dempsey, Guinn V United States and Brown v Board Of Education, the group’s influence in both modern day and past civil rights movements is irrefutable. With this in mind this group has also had its pitfalls and has not always, still to this day, have the support of the entire black community for varying reasons. Marcus Garvey was a major activist voice that vehemently disagreed with the goals and tactics of the NAACP.

The establishment of Jim Crow laws enforced in the southern states led to the promotion of discrimination and segregation within African Americans. To the extension of southern legislation obstructing African-American children from attending the same public schools as white children. The motive behind the Fourteenth amendment was no denial to an American citizen to their authority of equal protection of the laws, however, the execution of racial segregation was considered as constitutional. The NAACP, the first nationwide civil rights organization, led to the promotion of challenging the segregated race relations. The indictment campaign was designed to deteriorate segregation through a series of court challenges. An attack on segregation in education was advocated for the implication of the treatment as a second-class citizen through a malicious system it had on African Americans. The need of opening doors of opportunity that have been closed for African Americans was pursued through the filing of five lawsuits for striving for the betterment of conditions and quality of education in the segregated

The newspaper article appears to be a news report about the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action on the Fisher v. University of Texas case. The purpose of this text is to inform readers about the decision and the view point of officials who agree and disagree with affirmative action, as well of those who are in between and those who don’t think we are close to solving this issue. The author, Adam Liptak, focuses on writing about the United States Supreme Court, and is graduate from Yale; He has even taught courses on the Supreme Court and the First Amendment at several law schools, including, Yale. In a nutshell, Liptak is an expert when dealing with Supreme Court cases. The audience of this article are those supporters and adversaries of affirmative action who wish to be informed of what is going on. The text was published by The New York Times and one should know prior people involved with past cases as they are listed in the article. While it is recommended that one knows names of people involved with this or prior case(s), like that of Abigail Fisher and Justice Kennedy, it is not necessary as the text gives a brief description for those who don’t know. The text was published in 2016, since it’s from this year, it is a great resource since it is up to date with the latest Supreme Court Case dealing with affirmative action.