Issue:
The issue on this matter is whether under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Green, claim qualifies for disparate treatment.
Facts:
The petitioner in the case is an aerospace and aircraft manufacturer McDonnell Douglas Corp who employs over 30,000 people. He laid off a black civil rights activist respondent during a general reduction. Green engaged the petitioner in a disruptive and illegal protest claiming his discharge was motivated by racially discriminatory hiring practices during his time as an employee. The respondent filed a complaint with the Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after the petitioner rejected his reemployment application. The petitioner subsequently advertised for qualified mechanics (respondent’s trade). The respondent claims the petitioner refused to hire him due to his involvement in the civil rights movement and race while the petitioner claims he did not hire the respondent on grounds that he participated in “stall and lock in”.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Decision:
According to the EEOC, the petitioner violated section 704 (a) of the Act by refusing to hire the respondent. The act prohibits discriminating against employees who protest against employment conditions that are discriminatory. However, on claims of section 703 (a) (1) violation, the court did not make any findings. Section 703 (a) (1) forbids decisions based on discrimination in employment. The District Court stated that the Commission (EEOC) did not produce adequate evidence to believe that section 703 was violated hence dismissed the claims of racial discrimination. Moreover, the findings of the court regarding the petitioner’s refusal to rehire the respondent was not on the respondents legitimate civil rights activities but his engagement in illegal demonstrations. Therefore, the District Court concluded that Title VII or 704 does not protect anyone engaging in “stall-in” and “lock-in” demonstration activities that the respondent engaged. However, the Eight Circuit ordered that under section 703 (a) (1), the case remain for trial considering the respondents claims. Furthermore, section 704 (a) was reaffirmed by the Eight Circuit stating that the section does not protect illegal protests, conversely, section 703 (a) (1) dismissed earlier was reversed under the claims of hiring practices that were racially discriminatory. The Eight Circuit held that determining reasonable cause was not a precondition of raising a claim under section 703 (a) (1).
Title VII does not give authority to a petitioner to use the conduct of the respondent as a pretext despite the fact that the respondent participated in unlawful “stall-in,” which was meant to interrupt the operations of the petitioner’s plant during its peak hours. In remanding, the Court of Appeal found that there was an established prima facie case by the respondent, additionally, the only way to satisfy is through showing that he is from a racial minority, he had the qualifications for the job he applied, despite his qualification, he was rejected, and the petitioner continued looking for applicants matching respondent’s qualifications. Therefore, under Title VII, the Court of Appeals held that the respondent’s claims qualify for different treatment hence the respondent must get the chance to demonstrate that the reasons given by the petitioner for refusing to rehire him were just pretexts. Later, the Court of Appeal administered the certiorari order.
HRM Implications:
It is mandatory for the Human resource managers to exercise every section of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the Title VII does not force employers to rehire qualified employees; moreover, the section also prohibits employers from using the conduct of employees as a pretext for not hiring them.
