Were you discriminated against for promotion because of your age and gender?
Yes; Arthur King discriminated against you Ima Shewin by not giving you the promotion that she was qualified for because of your age and gender. This act and how Arthur King conducted himself at the interview and based on his reputation around the office would be sufficient to meet the definition of Discrimination provides by the Human Rights Law. (NY Executive Law, §296)
Analysis of Claims
Discrimination of Age: age separation includes treating somebody (a candidate or worker) less positively in view of his or her age. The Age Segregation in Work Act (ADEA) just prohibits age victimization individuals who are age 40 or more seasoned. It doesn’t ensure laborers less than 40 years old, albeit a few states do have laws that shield more youthful specialists from age segregation. It is not illicit for a business or other secured element to support a more established specialist over a more youthful one, regardless of the fact that both laborers are age 40 or more seasoned. Separation can happen when the casualty and the individual who caused the segregation are both more than 40. Presently there are diverse sub classifications of age Segregation. (Eeoc.gov, 2015)
Work Circumstances: The law disallows separation with regards to any part of the job, including procuring, terminating, pay, work assignments, advancements, cutback, preparing, incidental advantages, and whatever other term or state of vocation.
Harassment: It is unlawful to bug a man as a result of his or her age. Badgering can incorporate, for instance, hostile comments around a man’s age. In spite of the fact that the law doesn’t restrict basic teasing, casual remarks, or detached occurrences that aren’t intense, badgering is unlawful when it is so visit or extreme that it makes an unfriendly or hostile workplace or when it results in an antagonistic occupational choice, (for example, the casualty being terminated or downgraded). The harasser can be the casualty’s boss, a manager in another territory, a colleague, or somebody who is not a worker of the business, for example, a customer or client.
Employment Policies/Practices: A livelihood approach or practice that applies to everybody, paying little heed to age, can be unlawful on the off chance that it negatively affects candidates or workers age 40 or more seasoned and is not in view of a sensible variable other than age (RFOA).
Discrimination of Gender: Gender segregation includes treating somebody (a candidate or worker) unfavorably on account of that individual’s sex. Gender segregation additionally can include treating somebody less positively on account of his or her association with an association or gathering that is by and large connected with individuals of a particular gender.
Work Circumstances: The law precludes segregation with regards to any part of the job, including contracting, Terminating, pay, work assignments, advancements, cutback, preparing, incidental advantages, and some other term or state of business. Harassment: It is unlawful to hassle a man in light of that individual’s sexual orientation. Badgering can incorporate “inappropriate behavior” or unwelcome lewd gestures, demands for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical provocation of a sexual nature. Badgering does not need to be of a sexual nature, in any case, and can incorporate hostile comments around a man’s sex. For instance, it is illicit to hassle a lady by making hostile remarks about ladies when all is said in done. (Eeoc.gov, 2015)
Both casualty and the harasser can be either a lady or a man, and the casualty and harasser can be the same sexual orientation. In spite of the fact that the law doesn’t disallow straightforward teasing, spur of the moment remarks, or confined occurrences that are not intense, provocation is unlawful when it is so visit or serious that it makes an antagonistic or hostile workplace or when it results in an unfriendly occupational choice, (for example, the casualty being let go or downgraded). The harasser can be the casualty’s manager, a boss in another region, an associate, or somebody who is not a worker of the business, for example, a customer or client.
Employment Policies/Practices: A job arrangement or practice that applies to everybody, paying little mind to sex, can be illicit in the event that it negatively affects the vocation of individuals of a sure sexual orientation and is not occupation related or important to the operation of the business.
Discrimination of Race: Race separation includes treating somebody (a candidate or worker) unfavorably in light of the fact that he/she is of a sure race or due to individual attributes connected with race, (for example, hair composition, skin shading, or certain facial components). Shading separation includes treating somebody unfavorably as a result of skin shading appearance.
Race segregation additionally can include treating somebody unfavorably in light of the fact that the individual is hitched to (or connected with) a man of a sure race or shading or due to a man’s association with a race-based association or bunch, or an association or gathering that is for the most part connected with individuals of a sure shading. Segregation can happen when the casualty and the individual who delivered the separation are the same race or shading.
Work Circumstances: The law restricts separation with regards to any part of livelihood, including procuring, terminating, pay, work assignments, advancements, cutback, preparing, incidental advantages, and some other term or state of the job.
Harassment: It is unlawful to pester a man in light of that individual’s race or shading. Provocation can incorporate, for instance, racial slurs, hostile or critical comments around a man’s race or shading, or the presentation of racially-hostile images. In spite of the fact that the law doesn’t disallow basic teasing, spur of the moment remarks, or secluded occurrences that are not intense, provocation is illicit when it is so visit or extreme that it makes a threatening or hostile workplace or when it results in an unfavorable vocation choice, (for example, the casualty being let go or downgraded). The harasser can be the casualty’s manager, a boss in another range, a colleague, or somebody who is not a representative of the business, for example, a customer or client.
Employment Policies/Practices: A job arrangement or practice that applies to everybody, paying little respect to race or shading, can be unlawful on the off chance that it negatively affects the vocation of individuals of a specific race or shading and is not employment related and important to the operation of the business. For instance, a “no-facial hair” business arrangement that applies to all laborers without respect to race may at present be unlawful in the event that it is not occupation related and negatively affects the livelihood of African-American men (who have an inclination to a skin condition that causes extreme shaving knocks).(Eeoc.gov, 2015)
1. Discrimination of age:
You Ms. Ima Shewin is our client at Westernman, Brandford and Associates. You are a 45-year-old African-American woman with advanced degrees in English and journalism, you has been employed by The Blabber, a newspaper in Atlanta, Georgia, for 10 years, and started as an entry- level researcher. Two years later, she was promoted to a junior-level reporter position, and two years after that, to a senior-level reporter position. She has now been a senior-level reporter for the last six years.
During the first eight years of your employment, Sherwin reported to George Doright. Two years ago, The Blabber reorganized, and Doright was moved to another division in the company. Since then, Sherwin has reported to Arthur King, The Blabber’s senior editor. Following the reorganization, two editors have retired. Although Shewin applied for these positions, they were not offered to you. In fact, you were only invited to interview for one of the positions, although you believe you met the qualifications for both.
2. Discrimination of Gender:
Last month, you applied for a junior-editor position that you’ve been after for several years now. Based upon the qualifications that were identified in the job’s classified ad, you’ve felt that you was a shoo-in. so you applied and was interviewed. The interview with Mr. King did not go as well as you had hoped. The interview took place over lunch in a restaurant. King started out the conversation by engaging in seemingly harmless social banter, but you was uncomfortable with his personal questions about your relationship with your boyfriend. A few weeks after the interview, it was announced that someone else got the position.
King has a reputation for making sexist comments, which several women in the company find offensive, as do a number of men. For example, he described one pregnant reporter as “barefoot and pregnant.” He has also asked you out to “discuss business,” invitations that you have declined and you feels that rejecting him may have something to do with you not getting the job.
These two factors are your strongest because A.It happened to you. B.Fits the qualifications that I discussed above to bring action against the company. C.It is visible.
3. Discrimination of Race
This is your weakest factor and claim, there is not a lot of proof to show that you was discriminated against because of your race and because we have age and gender that proves that you was a victim of discrimination it would be extremely difficult to prove that race was a factor as well unless If you Ms. Shewin are able to establish a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the Blabber to show that it had a legitimate business reason for its action. If the Blabber is able to establish this, the burden then shifts back to you Ms. Shewin to show that the proffered reason is merely pretext for discrimination. I believe we should drop this off as one of your claims it’s almost nonexistent.
Summary of Other Information If you wish to proceed with the discrimination of race claim, I would need more information and information that can paint a picture to the judge of racial discrimination and also if you could get an testimony from a few of your coworkers or if we can establish a prima facie, meaning that the evidence is sufficient to explore the claim. Conclusion
The facts and the law shows that Arthur King did discriminate against you Ms. Shewin. You didn’t have a real interview, and based on his reputation at the job and what was discussed in the so-called interview. It is most likely that Mr. King will be charged with age discrimination and gender discrimination. As outlined in NY Executive Law, §296. Also According to the law and the facts for this case the strongest claim is age Discrimination as we can see that most of the workers are younger in age especially those with higher positions. . It is most likely that Mr. King will be charged with age discrimination and gender discrimination, but not Race discrimination, as outlined in NY Executive Law, §296, and by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Eeoc.gov, 2015)