Legal Implications Of Discrimination And Harassment In The Workplace: A Case Analysis Of Manhart v. Los Angeles Department Of Water And Power And EEOC v. WCandM Enterprises
Get this Assignment Answers for an in-depth legal case study on workplace discrimination.
William Ford
Contributor
4.6
40
4 months ago
Preview (3 of 7)
Sign in to access the full document!
Legal Implications of Discrimination and Harassment in the Workplace: A Case Analysis
of Manhart v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and EEOC v. WC&M
Enterprises
In the context of the Manhart v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and EEOC v.
WC&M Enterprises cases, how do legal decisions surrounding discrimination and harassment in
the workplace impact organizational practices and human resource management? Discuss the
central legal issues, pertinent facts, and implications for HR practices, with specific reference to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Word Count Requirement: 800-1000 words
of Manhart v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and EEOC v. WC&M
Enterprises
In the context of the Manhart v. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and EEOC v.
WC&M Enterprises cases, how do legal decisions surrounding discrimination and harassment in
the workplace impact organizational practices and human resource management? Discuss the
central legal issues, pertinent facts, and implications for HR practices, with specific reference to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Word Count Requirement: 800-1000 words
Los Angeles vs. Manhart
1. The central legal issue of the case; what question(s) are raised in this case and are to be
addressed. If this is an appellate decision, what was the issue of the original trial case?
Note: this should not be a paragraph filled with contextual facts.
Legal issue: Making decision to pay higher to female employees to get equal profits on
retirement and violated Title VII.
Question rose: The main question which rose was that the extra contributions for the female
employees were demanded by the employer since according to statistical evidences by the
pension planner it concluded that there is longevity of female employees in comparison to male
employees.
Issue of the original trial case: In this there is a violation by the employer, Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 when it requires women to contribute more than men to a pension fund in
order to receive the same level of benefits.
2. The pertinent facts: These are the key facts that define the problem and bear upon the
decision. You do not have to list every nitty, gritty detail here but provide enough detail to
set the context of the case and issues.
This case was lodged by a group of female employees against the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power, asking for higher payment to female employees to receive equal benefits,
violated title VII. Then for this trial court held for the employees, finding that in department their
occurred illegal sex discrimination, on appeal, the court of U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit confirmed the trial court’s judgment. Then Department appealed to the Supreme Court of
U.S.
1. The central legal issue of the case; what question(s) are raised in this case and are to be
addressed. If this is an appellate decision, what was the issue of the original trial case?
Note: this should not be a paragraph filled with contextual facts.
Legal issue: Making decision to pay higher to female employees to get equal profits on
retirement and violated Title VII.
Question rose: The main question which rose was that the extra contributions for the female
employees were demanded by the employer since according to statistical evidences by the
pension planner it concluded that there is longevity of female employees in comparison to male
employees.
Issue of the original trial case: In this there is a violation by the employer, Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 when it requires women to contribute more than men to a pension fund in
order to receive the same level of benefits.
2. The pertinent facts: These are the key facts that define the problem and bear upon the
decision. You do not have to list every nitty, gritty detail here but provide enough detail to
set the context of the case and issues.
This case was lodged by a group of female employees against the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power, asking for higher payment to female employees to receive equal benefits,
violated title VII. Then for this trial court held for the employees, finding that in department their
occurred illegal sex discrimination, on appeal, the court of U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit confirmed the trial court’s judgment. Then Department appealed to the Supreme Court of
U.S.
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%
Study Now!
XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
Document Chat
Document Details
Subject
Human Resource Management