Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Essay Available:
Pages:
3 pages/≈825 words
Sources:
Check Instructions
Style:
MLA
Subject:
Business & Marketing
Type:
Case Study
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 12.96
Topic:

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: Business & Marketing Case Study

Case Study Instructions:

CASE BRIEF
A case brief is a summary of a judicial decision. In order to prepare a brief, the
student must first read and understand the decision. Students will be assigned a
specific case to brief. The list will be posted on Blackboard under the tab “Case Brief
Assignment.” Briefs must conform to the format described in Appendix A of the
textbook.
Case briefs should be 2-3 pages long. In addition, you must attach the judicial
decision to your brief. Failure to attach a decision to your brief will result in a
deduction of points.
In order to properly complete this assignment, you must look up and read the
full judicial decision. The full judicial opinions can be accessed through NexisUni.
Students can access NexisUni either on or off campus via the Internet, provided that
the student has an active campus computer account. A powerpoint explaining how to
access your case on LEXIS-NEXIS will be posted on Blackboard.
Your brief is in essence a summary of the court’s decision IN YOUR OWN
WORDS. Please note that copying and pasting the text of the decision is not briefing
a case and, accordingly, credit will not be given. Briefing involves the student’s own
analysis of the case and should reflect the student’s understanding of the decision.
Choose 1 of the 2 cases for this assignment
1) O'Donnell v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 263, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5621, 43 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 150, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P37,151 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western DivisionFebruary 24, 1987,
here is the link for LEXIS-NEXIS
https://advance-lexis-com(dot)queens(dot)ezproxy(dot)cuny(dot)edu/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=948f67cf-fd05-4f45-ba23-7ccb81e0782c&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3S4N-DJ20-003B-63WC-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=6416&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWW-1P31-2NSD-P2C6-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=fzx2k&earg=sr0&prid=cb8b3103-0e7d-492a-a76d-b043ace8cb61
2) Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9873 (Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department July 18, 1991 ).
here is the link for LEXIS-NEXIS
https://advance-lexis-com(dot)queens(dot)ezproxy(dot)cuny(dot)edu/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=93fbf588-af84-47b8-97be-8e3fc8e79a51&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3S2R-8DM0-003V-B23K-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=9092&pdshepid=urn%3AcontentItem%3A7XWN-YVB1-2NSD-M02Y-00000-00&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=fzx2k&earg=sr0&prid=fb686bf9-db62-40b1-bebf-f8443659fd70

Case Study Sample Content Preview:

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code
Date
Citation
O'Donnell v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 263, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. February 24, 1987, Filed. No. C-1-86-0069
* Facts
Form the case, O'Donnell v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse, Inc., 656 F. Supp. 263, 1987, many issues have been raised, regarding the issue of workplace discrimination, based on an individual's sex. From the case presentation, the process of forcing the female employees, who worked as salesclerks to wear smocks, while allowing the male employees to wear shirts and ties was a form of sexual discrimination. The women were discriminated against, based on their gender. Wearing the smocks has major negative impacts on the female employees since it sends a negative message to their male peers, who might create the negative notion that the female employees were of less status and qualification. When the female employees were dismissed from their duties, the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The female employee's rights to be heard were also violated by the employer since they were forced to work in an environment where they felt oppressed, disregarded, and also mistreated. The mandatory requirement to wear the smock by the female employees brought about the idea of sexual stereotyping, where the employer argued that the women were not mature enough to make their own decision regarding the clothes they would wear. The employer's argument that, the women would compete in fashion and that men were mature enough not to compete, was ill-informed and discriminatory. The female employees were fired after going against the set company rules of wearing smocks. The female employees had decided to show up at their workplace wearing casual wear, which was against the set company rules and regulations.
* ISSUE
The sp...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:
Order

You Might Also Like Other Topics Related to stereotyping:

HIRE A WRITER FROM $11.95 / PAGE
ORDER WITH 15% DISCOUNT!
Order Now