Sex+Religion Discrimination Essay, Research Paper
The critical issue in this instance is whether Farm Fresh Food, Inc. acted legitimately by denying employment to Jennifer Brand. Farm Fresh Foods farther claim that Ms. Brand failed to set up a leading facie instance of favoritism based on sex or faith. Furthermore, they claim that even had such instance been established, Farm Fresh determination to deny employment to Ms. Brand was non a stalking-horse for knowing favoritism.
When Ms. Brand foremost applied for a occupation as a & # 8220 ; female learner meat cutter & # 8221 ; , which would be an entry degree direction place, she was interviewed by so frailty president of human resources for Farm Fresh, Richard Marty. After doing it a demand for Farm Fresh to give her Sunday & # 8217 ; s off due to her spiritual religion, Ms. Brand received a missive from Mr. Marty saying that Farm Fresh did non hold a place for her at the clip, but would maintain her application in the active file for a twelvemonth in instance something turns up. However, when a place became available which Ms. Brand was really qualified for, she was non called up or scheduled for another interview.
The Court believes that a Prima facie instance for sexual favoritism is established in this instance. In order to switch the Burden of Proof in a disparate intervention instance, the complainant must set up a leading facie instance by preponderance of the undermentioned grounds: ( 1 ) he/she is a member of a protected category ; ( 2 ) applied for and was qualified for a occupation gap ; ( 3 ) rejected for a place ; and ( 4 ) the place remained op
nut and the employer continued to seek appliers whose makings were similar to those of the complainant. Therefore, it is the sentiment of this Court that a Prima facie instance has been established. Ms. Brand has fulfilled all of the needed standards for set uping a Prima facie instance. ( 1 ) Bing a female, she is a member of a protected category ; ( 2 ) She did use for a place and due to her old meat negligee experience she was really qualified for that place ; ( 3 ) even though she was qualified she still was rejected for the place ; and ( 4 ) the place remained opened for a twelvemonth and another applier got the occupation without Ms. Brand even being considered for it.
Upon set uping a Prima facie instance for disparate intervention, we will now
see if Farm & # 8217 ; s Fresh grounds for denying employment to Ms. Brand were a stalking-horse for favoritism based on faith and/or sex. Upon being interviewed by Mr. Marty, Ms. Brand was denied employment after doing it a requirement for employment to hold Sundays off due to her spiritual religion. Mr. Marty replied that Farm Fresh did non hold a place available at the clip. However, it is this Court & # 8217 ; s belief that Mr. Marty denied employment entirely due to the complainant & # 8217 ; s inability to work Sundays. The employer would non travel through the problem of questioning an applier if they do non hold a place available. Therefore, Ms. Marty was denied employment due to her faith, which is a misdemeanor of Title VII. However, this case was merely the beginning of spiritual favoritism administered by Farm Fresh Foods.