mikerd5522
Train Attendant
I was a little off on the numbers, but here's the law (from eeoc.gov):I was under the impression that if a business that had three employees posted a job listing that explicitly said they were going to only hire someone if they happened to be of a particular race, that business would be in trouble. On the other hand, if the fourth person they hired happened to be the fourth non-minority person working there, the principles of statistics say that it's quite possible that that four person business was making decisions that have nothing to do with race that just so happened to result in that set of people working there.
What laws does the EEOC enforce and do they apply to my business?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits race, color, religion, sex, and national origin discrimination. Title VII applies to:
employers with fifteen (15) or more employees
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against individuals who are forty (40) years of age or older. The ADEA applies to: employers with twenty (20) or more employees
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. The ADA applies to: employers with fifteen (15) or more employees
Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) prohibits wage discrimination between men and women in substantially equal jobs within the same establishment. The EPA applies to: most employers with one or more employees
Oh, I agree completely. An overview of an organization's selection process, coupled with the training process, is actually a good way, of the many, to judge the effectiveness of the organization. I'm not up to-date on wrongful termination claims, but based on common knowledge...sounds like that may have occurred.However, I'm not sure discrimination would be the only class of wrong this could fall under. Jimmy apparently was fired for wearing something that he'd previously been told he could wear. I'd be surprised if it's actually OK to fire someone for a stated reason that turns out to be an unreasonable reason. And the photographs Jimmy's lawyer requested seem to be intended to demonstrate that Amtrak isn't consistently enforcing the rule that they're claiming Jimmy violated.
What my line of thinking is here, which may or may not be correct and is best determined by a lawyer, is this:
Amtrak doesn't provide Jimmy w/ proper uniform b/c they lack the proper size > Amtrak tells Jimmy two different things about what to do > Amtrak fires/dismisses Jimmy b/c he did not wear the proper apparel which they could not provide > Amtrak fails to accommodate Jimmy
The debate on whether this is a discriminatory act is much better suited between lawyers and a judge, but it quite obvious that Amtrak screwed up, based on the information we have.