Employment Discrimination - Assignment Example

Due to the fact that the termination was expressly concerned with the fact that his immediate supervisor felt he could not trust a homosexual in such a position, whatever shortcomings or missteps that Tom may have made in the past with regards to the his level of stereotypical manly talk, tough behavior, and/or flirting with female personnel within the organization. This is a likely approach that the organization will seek to put forward as a means of defense; however, it will not work due to the fact that the reason for termination was not stated to be any of these aspects; rather, it was determined to be due to the fact that the employer felt he could no longer trust Tom, he was ultimately terminated from his position.

Accordingly, this represents a very clear cut and flagrant violation of EEOC and employment law that the court system should not have any difficulty adjudicating. As such, the final determination that can all but be assured is that the EEOC will rule in Tom’s favor and state that the employer has terminated an employee unlawfully; as such, Tom will have the possibility to either chose to continue his employment with back pay for time last or he can alternatively choose to pursue suit in the case (Marshall et al, 2011). 2. Robin has just graduated with an MS in elementary education.

He sends his resume to a number of school boards and one writes back offering an interview for a kindergarten position. When Robin arrives at the interview it is obvious that the interviewers had expected a female. They ask a few general questions and conclude the interview. Two days later he gets a rejection letter. He later finds out that a female applicant with only a Bachelor’s degree was hired. He believes that he has been discriminated against due to sex and he files a complaint with the EEOC.

The school district defends by saying that kindergarten teachers are traditionally female and that the parents' preference is for a female to conduct the class. Is the school board justified in their actions and will their defense be effective? One of the difficulties in defining and discussing legality and ethics within the workplace decisions is the differentiation between unethical behavior and ultimate illegality. As such, the case in question illustrates both an unethical and illegal component.

Whereas the employer is within its rights to make certain determinations, it is against the law to discriminate upon an individual based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation. Although the school may think that their defense is rock solid due to the fact that they have included another group’s preferences into the decision making process, the fact of the matter is that this defense expressly admits that they had been discriminating upon sex as one of the primal determinants to fulfill the position in question.

Moreover, the fact of tradition itself, or the preference of shareholders, has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of whether or not the ultimate hiring authority had discriminated (McMahon & Hurley, 2008). The school district made a fundamental mistake in first choosing to discriminate based upon gender and a second fundamental mistake in admitting to the fact that they had discriminated; regardless of whatever weak excuse was employed to make up for such an action. As such, the cas