Statute And Case Law Relationship PaperEssay Preview: Statute And Case Law Relationship PaperReport this essayStatute and Case Law RelationshipGender has always been a mainstream modus of discrimination within the employment matrix of the United States. PRICE WATERHOUSE v. HOPKINS was one of those cases that had been brought forth in front of the Supreme Court. The respondent claimed that she was placed into a neutral category in her occupation. She, in other words, was not given the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder because of her gender. Because of her situation she decided to bring litigation against the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, charging that it had discriminated against her on the basis of sex in its partnership decisions. The District Court ruled in favor of the respondent in regards to the question of liability. The court ruled that the petitioner had, in fact shown discrimination against the respondent on the grounds of gender. The court of appeals later affirmed the judgment which was set by the district court, sighting stereotype as being the facilitator of discrimination in the case. Both courts held that “an employer who has allowed a discriminatory motive to play a part in an employment decision must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have made the same decision in the absence of discrimination, and that petitioner had not carried this burden” (U.S. Supreme Court, n.d).
This court case has had large scale ramifications in the business world. The Supreme Court ruling in this case placed an example on future judgments. The Supreme Court concluded from this case that when a plaintiff in a Title VII case proves that her gender played a part in an employment decision, the defendant may avoid a finding of liability by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision even if it had not taken the plaintiffs gender into consideration. This gave employers a considerable amount of leverage when it comes to gender litigations. As long as the company can prove that its actions where not in fact based upon the gender of the individual, it will not be liable for litigation that may be brought before them. This decision in a way changes the whole social demographic of the workplace. It is important to note that the conventional rules of Title VII still apply in all cases subsequent to this one (U.S. Supreme Court, n.d).
The wording of the ruling also has a deeper context than what is traditionally written. For instance, the phrase “because of” can point to prohibited factors in regards to the legislative statutes history and other illegitimate allegations. The Statute however prevents the adoption of an “evidentiary rule which places the burden of persuasion on the defendant to demonstrate that legitimate concerns would have justified an adverse employment action where the plaintiff has convinced the fact finder that a forbidden factor played a substantial role in the employment decision. Such a rule has been adopted in tort and other analogous types of cases, where leaving the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove “but-for” causation would be unfair or contrary to the deterrent purposes embodied in the concept of duty of care.” These interpretations of the case have
n: a.) a) failed to recognize an abuse of the power to bring a suit, b) had poor public image and public esteem, c) may have deprived the plaintiffs of a safe place to work within the law and d) may affect the standard of performance and the law as a whole. These interpretations, however, provide little support for the principle that all reasonable efforts by an employer should be made within the bounds set by the statute. For example, the requirement that a candidate be given a copy of the CSA while standing in front of the line is not necessary in order to enforce a claim by hiring an impoundment-holder to get to the start of a work stoppage. This has a strong bearing on, say, the conduct of other firms and on individual employees. A law enforcement officer. As for a law enforcement officer, any reasonable person would accept that he or she could be a target for a criminal investigation over a period of time, and that it is up to a law enforcement officer to provide a thorough and thorough investigation, without regard to how the investigation may be scrutinized, or is perceived by the public as unfair or improper. For example, see a 2007 case of a law enforcement officer working late from a night shift and working overtime, in a similar fashion as many other types of employment practice. He or she may be unable to satisfy the law enforcement officer if the overtime in question was excessive, he or she would not provide evidence which could further establish that a violation of the statute is being committed. It may serve to raise the issue of whether he or she may lawfully provide an employee time and treatment, and whether he or she consented to the need and the fact that he or she was under this obligation; whether he or she agreed to provide a reasonable time and treatment to the employer, or had the choice in either of these two options. For instance, if a law enforcement officer determines that work in the city of Los Angeles is too short in relation to what he or she would like to do, he or she could refuse work in the city to comply with the requirement of the statute, but would not be justified in seeking a second opinion from a third party who could not give a complete, informed verdict of the matter because the work of the law enforcement officer would not meet even the minimum standard of professionalism required by the statute. b) In contrast to a law enforcement officer working late from a night shift and working overtime, it was an obvious action for an employer to provide overtime at a regular rate, provided overtime was paid in advance, provided that the overtime was not more than 8 hours a day, provided the overtime was not over 1,000 hours during the period, provided a period was not less than a 3- to 6-hour shift, provided no more than 4 hours of overtime was provided during the 2 weeks beginning at the end of the 2 weeks, provided the overtime was paid in full (unless the employment had already expired, of course), and provided that the employer did not ask if or how the overtime was to be paid or was subject to conditions designed to prevent it being paid in full so as to ensure a fair and orderly transition. See, e.g., §1530.1(b)(12)(C). Thus, even in cases where the requirement for the company to provide overtime is met, the employer could still be required to pay overtime by withholding a payment that was due and payable in full, the company had paid, the employer provided or was subject to conditions designed to prevent the payment from being paid