Barbano v madison county case brief

Legal Search

This argument is important in yellow color to illustrate the first argument that needs some modification and I put the color red and yellow it to illustrate

The second argument is developed by yellow color and needs to work in this argument

Argument

Pricewter house rule.

Explanation of the rule

Barabano case

What happened

The defendant violated the title VII when HIS questions to not hire Ms. Beck was motivated factor to not hire her:

1- The defendant questions were discriminatory because they were unrelated to unrelated to occupational qualification.

This case relates to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff after it was found that her gender played a key role in the employment decision process. Maureen E. Barbano v. Madison County 922 F.2d 139 (1990) also relates to this case after the court found out that by the defendant (Madison County) asking the plaintiff (Barbano) questions pertaining to how her husband would react in relation to her taking the job was found to be discriminatory and the court in favor of the plaintiff. Similarly to our case, Firstly, the issue of discrimination arises from the questions that plaintiff was subjected to answer by defendant the first being what her boyfriend would think of her working long hours at the firm and traveling with male attorneys. Secondly, she was asked whether she was planning on having children in the future and if so how would she manage professional and personal responsibilities. Mr. Herrera also stated that he loses at least one attorney each year to “the baby”. In essence, these questions are not in any way part of the interview criteria and more importantly they are discriminatory and unrelated to occupational qualification. However, more importantly, none of the other interviewers cited the derailment in defandent 's questioning as they neither stopped the plaintiff from answering nor did they ask her about her other qualifications. Hence, the interviewing process was entirely discriminatory

1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; SUMMARY case heir and citation, and You should write this in your own way and not copy the case, understanding the subject then write it in your own way and then put a citation from where you took this

or

2) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin : SUMMARY case heir and citation, and You should write this in your own way and not copy the case ,understanding the subject then write it in your own way and then put a citation from where you took this

This case relates to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff after it was found that her gender played a key role in the employment decision process. Additionally, the case of Maureen E. Barbano v. Madison County 922 F.2d 139 (1990) also relates to this case after the court found out that by the defendant (Madison County) asking the plaintiff (Barbano) questions pertaining to how her husband would react in relation to her taking the job was found to be discriminatory and the court in favor of the plaintiff.

a) Mixed –motive cases-in the event that the plaintiff can convince the trier that an impermissible criterion was utilized in the employment decision, a different analysis in turn takes place. The plaintiff must then provide more evidence in addition to the not onerous factors. When the plaintiff wishes to present the case as a mixed –motive case, they must therefore prove that an illegitimate factor was significant in the employment decision. In the event that the plaintiff manages to convince the fact finder that illegitimate reasons played a critical in decisions made, the employee is then successful in proving their case. The employee is in this case entitled to succeed to the employer’s opportunity to prove its affirmative. This can be related to the Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 246, 109 S.Ct at 1788.

The Civil rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071. Section 107 of the Act that dealt with split opinions. Title VII states that:

“[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when an complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice even though other factors motivated the practice.”

Congress also added that when a plaintiff is able to prove that an impermissible factor was the motivating factor for a particular employment practice but the defendant proves affirmative defense a declaratory grant or injunctive relief can be made by the court as well as the attorney’s fees and cost. Civil Righgts of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166 §107 (b) (3)( to be codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000E-5(G)(2)(B)(i)even though the award of damages or issuing of orders that require admissions, reinstatement, hiring, promotion or payment is forbidden

(1) There is a decline in expressing the opinions non the meaning of the 1991 act as it conflicts among the EEOC and other courts in regards to retroactivity. (Mojica v. Fannet Co. 779F.Supp. 94, 99 (N.D.III.1991)

(2) However, regardless of the Act’s retroactivity a similar result on the mixed motives analysis is attained.

(3) In relation to the Human Rights Law, New York is yet to express their views on the new act hence it would be absurd to assume that the courts without legislative action would incorporate the statute in the Human Rights Jurisprudence.

(4) Federal laws are treated differently to Human Rights laws.

(5) Difficulties in the case and controversies in the remedial portion of the act allows the plaintiff without personal stake to act as a private attorney in the bid to attain declaratory or injunctive relief.

In relation to the ADEA and title vii, employers are prohibited from making decisions with relation to age or any other prohibited factors. “Direct” and “indirect” evidence under the mixed-motive case does not refer to the quality of the evidence presented but the manner through which the cases are presented. The only scenario that would be regarded as being direct evidence is an admission by the defendant that she could not acquire a position bat the company due to the discriminatory questions she was asked at the interview.

The essential questions of fact include:

1) Were the questions asked by the interviewer the motivating factors for Ann Becks’s lack of employment?

2) Assuming that Kelpen Knab LLP discrimination was a motivating factor for Ann Beck’s lack of employment, would the same action be taken in the absence of the impermissible factor?

3) What is the amount of damage that would adequately compensate Ann for her economic losses?

4) What is the amount of damage that would adequately compensate Ann for her non-economic losses?

The plaintiff is however under Title VII and § 1983 required to establish that she was a victim of intentional discrimination. These can be presented in two ways; (1) direct proof of discrimination and (2) through the indirect evidence through the McDonell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), burden-shifting method of proof.

· In the absenc of the dicer Imation the defendant will still not hire M.S

Beck.

You should talk about qualifications of the plaintiff for example the experience

Lam case or barbano case