What EEOC is all about? Discussion Question
Question Description
I need a respond to the two discussion below It need to be separate respond to both of them. I will paste them below in bold :
First discussion:
Analysis
Susan was dismissed from her accounting position with Ajax Corp. and claims that she was fired for investigating a potentially dangerous product being developed by the company. Ajax Corp. claims that Susan was fired for not doing her job as an accountant. I am going to assume that Ajax Corp is a private company and at at-will employment applies to this corporation. In an at-will employment state, and employer can terminate an employee with or without reason, as long as the employer does not violate the employee’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
If Susan made a legitimate complaint to the EEOC, or provided information in a public policy investigation (whistleblower) and was terminated for doing so, that is retaliation. In other words, there must be some causal connection between Susan’s termination and a complaint of discrimination. If Susan is terminated due to “not doing her job” and Susan had never made any complaints of discrimination or provided information in a discrimination investigation, then Susan would not be able to file a retaliation suit against Ajax Corp.
In order for Susan to win her case, she would have to prove that retaliatory discrimination took place due to her engaging in a protected activity such as public policy. Retaliation under EEO Law occurs when an employee either opposes an illegal employment practice or participates in filing a formal claim, and the employer subsequently engages in an adverse activity against the employee for those actions (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2011).
There are three requirements for retaliation cases specified by Section 704a of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1991). In the first prong, the plaintiff must engage in a protected activity by either complaining about a specific illegal employment practice (opposition) or filing a formal claim of discrimination (participation). In the second prong, after engaging in the protected activity, the plaintiff must suffer an adverse employment action from the defendant. Finally, in the third prong the plaintiff must be able to show a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
According to the Lawson and Zang v. FRM LLC case, the plaintiffs, Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zang, brought a lawsuit against their former employer, FMR LLC, a subcontractor of Fidelity Investments (Fidelity), alleging that the company unlawfully fired them in retaliation for filing complaints. Both Lawson and Zang told the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) that they believed that Fidelity had violated certain rules and regulations set forth by both the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and federal laws relating to fraud against shareholders. Sometime after filing these complaints, Zang was terminated for unsatisfactory performance. Lawson filed several retaliations claims against her employer with OSHA, and resigned in 2007, claiming that she had been constructively discharged.
Zang and Lawson each filed separate actions against their former employers in district court. They alleged that the defendants violated “whistleblower” protection sections of the Sarbanes-Oakley Act by taking retaliatory actions against them. The district court found in favor of the plaintiffs and held that the whistleblower provisions extended to employees of private agents, contractors, and subcontractors to public companies and that the plaintiffs had engaged in protected activity under the statute. The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which reversed the decision. Looking at both Congressional intent and the plain meaning of the statute, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs were not protected employees under the act.
In Hartford, CT, a health care facility did not adequately respond to a December 2011 tuberculosis exposure. Accordingly, a VP of Operations, the Director of Nursing, and a Program Coordinator worked together to raise the awareness of employees, management, and the public regarding the potential dangers of the exposure. Rather than applaud the three employees for their efforts, the CEO of the health center terminated them.
The subsequent OSHA whistleblower investigation revealed that the health center improperly fired the employees in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the resulting June 2017 consent judgment stipulated payment of lost wages (approximately $125,000) and neutral letters of reference.
As the defendant, Ajax Corp could argue legitimate non-discriminatory reason. Ajax Corp would have to prove that Susan was investigating a “potentially dangerous substance” and show evidence that the substance was indee