Case Analyses

Fact situation 1 [from Walsh (2013, p. 265)]:

A county fire department, undergoing reorganization due to budget shortfalls, eliminated four training captain positions and replaced them with three lieutenant-level training instructor positions. The plaintiff, a white male, was one of the displaced training captains. He applied for one of the new positions and exceeded the stated qualifications. Interviews were conducted by three people who were not firefighters or trainers and who had not been given copies of the job description. Two of the interviewers were known to be proponents of affirmative action. The stated policy was to consider interview results as only one factor in hiring. The plaintiff was rejected.One of those hired was a minority person who did not meet the minimum qualifications. The county had an affirmative action plan but claimed that its decision was based (in conflict with its stated policy) solely on the results of the interview. The rejected candidate sued, claiming [among other things] discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.This type of claim is often referred to as "reverse discrimination."Discuss the facts that you think are most important to the outcome of this case; explain why those facts are so important. Then, apply legal concepts to the facts of the case to explain what the court should decide.(Bass v. Board of County Commissioners, 256 F. 3d 1095 [11th Cir. 2001])

Fact situation 2 [from Walsh (2013, p. 306)]:

A 17-year-old female supermarket employee was being severely harassed by a coworker named Bob. Twice she complained about the harassment to her fianc, who also worked at the supermarket. Twice the fianc reported the harassment to the store manager. Both times the manager informed him that under company policy, the woman had to report the harassment herself and make the report directly to the human resources (HR) department.The manager also discouraged the fianc [and thus the female employee] from further complaints, suggesting that it might only make matters worse.The manager did not report the incidents to anyone.The manager also shrugged off the second report of harassment, saying, "That's just Bob being himself."The woman did not make the report to the HR department, but she sued for [among other things] sexual harassment in violation of Title VII.Discuss the facts that you think are most important to the outcome of this case; explain why those facts are so important. Then, apply legal concepts to the facts of the case to explain what the court should decide.(Varner v. National Super Markets, 94 F. 3d 1209 [8th Cir. 1996], cert. denied, 519 U. S. 1110 [1997]