11.21 case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case briefing...

Description

Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Facts: Plaintiff and other male applicates of SW Airlines have challenged their refusal of male hires as a violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964. SW Airlines conceded it was intentional and legal, if they can prove that there is a “bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the normal operations of the business” of women’s sex appeal benefits. Legal Question: Is this a violation of the Civil Rights act? Decision and Reasoning: Yes. The BFOQ exception should not be permitted to go against the Civil Rights act. Based on past precedence from Phillips v. Martin, sex by itself should be denied as the only qualification for the BFOQ exception. Going against the idea that the equal opportunities presented in current law because of a minor indignity would be a mockery. Analysis: I agree. SW Airlines could still segregate/discriminate workers under the table. But the explicit recognition that something similar to this in other industries should be warranted.

EEOC v. Abercrombie Facts: Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim wears a headscarf. She applied for a position at A&F and was given a rating that meant that she was qualified to be hired. However, the hirer was concerned that the headscarf went against the store’s Look Policy and refused to hire her. Legal Question: Does the refusal to hire given an accommodation to the employer go against title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Decision and Reasoning: Yes. If the applicant was able to show that the refusal to hire was because of the desire to avoid accommodating a religious practice, it would go against title VII. Analysis: I find the reasoning a little hard. Given store policy, all head ware are restricted. A&F aren’t discriminating because it being a religious practice or not....