Question: 1 According to the Supreme Court what was Congress s objective

1. According to the Supreme Court, what was Congress’s objective in enacting Title VII?
2. Had Duke Power been able to establish that its reasons for adopting the diploma and test standards were entirely without discriminatory intent, would the Supreme Court have ruled differently? Explain.
3. What is the central issue in this case?
4. Why was North Carolina’s social and educational history relevant to the outcome of the case?
5. Statistical evidence showed that 35 percent of new hires in grocery and produce at Lucky Stores, a retail grocery chain, were women, while 84 percent of new hires in deli, bakery, and general merchandise were women. Statistical evidence also showed that 31 percent of those promoted into apprentice jobs in grocery and produce were women, while women comprised 75 percent of those promoted into apprentice jobs in deli, bakery, and general merchandise. Grocery and produce jobs generally were higher-paying jobs than those in deli, bakery, and general merchandise. Women received significantly fewer overtime hours than men. Do these facts regarding Lucky Stores suggest discrimination? Explain.
6. To determine whether police officers were using illegal drugs, the Boston Police Department used hair tests. The police department took adverse employment actions against several African-American police officers who had failed the test. The officers brought a Title VII action claiming the test created a disparate impact based on race. African-American officers had passed the test at rates between 97 and 99 percent, while white officers’ pass rate was 99 and 100 percent. However, the officers’ expert offered evidence that fail rates of African- American police officers were “statistically significant”—between two and four standard deviations. The Boston Police Department asked for summary judgment. Should the disparate impact claim be allowed to proceed? Explain.
7. Eighty-one percent of the hires at Consolidated Service Systems, a small Chicago janitorial company, were of Korean origin. The EEOC brought a disparate treatment claim, saying the firm discriminated in favor of Koreans by relying primarily on word-of-mouth recruiting. Hwang, the owner, is Korean. Seventy-three percent of the job applicants were Korean. One percent of the Chicago-area workforce is Korean, and not more than 3 percent of the janitorial workforce for the area is Korean. The court found no persuasive evidence of intentional discrimination, although the government claimed that 99 applicants were denied jobs because they were not Koreans.
a. Does restricting hiring to members of one ethnic group constitute discrimination where hiring is accomplished by word of mouth? Explain.
b. What if a firm, using the word-of-mouth approach, hired only white applicants? Explain.
c. In this case, the EEOC brought but dropped a disparate impact claim. Analyze the case using the disparate impact test.
We granted the writ in this case to resolve the question whether an employer is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, from requiring a high school education or passing of a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs when (a) neither standard is shown to be significantly related to successful job performance, (b) both requirements operate to disqualify Negroes at a substantially higher rate than white applicants, and (c) the jobs in question formerly had been filled only by white employees as part of a longstanding practice of giving preference to whites.

Sale on SolutionInn
  • CreatedOctober 02, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question