. Ivor Franklin, a citizen of the United Kingdom [of Scottish ancestry] with a d
ID: 361972 • Letter: #
Question
. Ivor Franklin, a citizen of the United Kingdom [of Scottish ancestry] with a doctorate from MIT and a visa that allows him to legally work in the United States, designs software for Pixel Communications in Palo Alto, California. Pixel has 12 employees and is owned and operated by two United States citizens [of Chinese ancestry]. Franklin's coworkers, Jin Pan and Dongping Jiang, also United States citizens [of Chinese ancestry], possess bachelor degrees in mechanical engineering from DeVry University and work as software technicians. Jin and Dongping are late for work virtually every day (after being out late drinking) but no action is taken against them even though the owners are aware of their tardiness. They also happen to be the owners’ nephews. Pixel’s policy provides that an employee reporting to work late more than once in a sixty day period can be dismissed. Franklin reports to work late on two occasions, fifty-nine days apart, because of his daughter’s illness [his spouse, Daniel, was working abroad at the time] and is suspended for a month without pay. [At the time he was hired Franklin told the owners that he was married to Daniel and that they had two children. The owners frowned and said that he should not discuss his personal life at the office.] When Franklin complains the owners respond by saying that he violated company policy and could have been fired. When Franklin argues that Jin and Dongping are being given preferential treatment, the owners justify their actions based on the fact that Jin and Dongping are U.S. citizens and, therefore, are entitled to extra privileges. They also explain that Ivor should be grateful he has a job given his “deviant” lifestyle. Explain whether Franklin has the basis for a lawsuit under federal law. Does he have any additional arguments under California law if he also timely filed a charge with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing? Be sure to explain your answer.
Explanation / Answer
Answer 1:
Yes, Frankin can charge a lawsuit against the employer under ferderal law VII of Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based upon protected characteristics regarding terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
An employer only required a english speaking employee with the required skills and permit to do the jobin US. Frankin has fulfilled both the requirements. Therefore, he should no be treated in the workplace differently.
Answer 2:
Franing is working in Pao Alto, California and he has full rights to raise the lawsuit against the employer under California LAW. Department of Fair employemnt and Housing under the california law enforces civil right law "Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.)". The mission of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH or Department) is to protect Californians from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence. Under the FEHA, the Department’s jurisdiction extends to individuals, private or public entities, housing providers, and business establishments within the State of California. The FEHA’s prohibitions against employment discrimination apply to employers with five or more employees. (Gov. Code, § 12926, subd. (d).) The prohibition against workplace harassment applies to employers with one or more employees. (Gov. Code, § 12945, subd. (j) (4) (A).)
Note: I would like to have your opinion.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.