Wedow v city of kansas city

Case Study Essay (EEOC V. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc)

EEOC v. Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc

In text citation

Reference:Two (2) to three (3), pages

Case Questions

1. Do you believe the employer made a good-faith effort to reasonably accommodate the employee?

2. Can you imagine other accommodations that may have been considered by the employer to be less disruptive to its three-minute punctuality requirement? From a relative perspective, do you agree with the court that fifteen minutes is a reasonable accommodation at the beginning of the work day and after lunch?

3. If increasing the number of special needs parking spaces would have allowed Demirelli to arrive at work on time, should the court have simply required that accommodation as an alternative? Cost was not discussed in this excerpted opinion; but do you think there should be a dollar limit on the price of a reasonable accommodation?

Running head: WEDOW V. KANSAS CITY

WEDOW V. KANSAS CITY 2

WEDOW V. KANSAS CITY CASE STUDY

William E. Blackman

Peirce College

Author Note:

This paper was prepared for HRM 306: Managing Employment Law In Business, taught by Professor Kristen Irey

Case Questions

1. Are you surprised that this is a 2006 case? Why or why not?

Based on the reasons and the arguments presented in the case, I am not surprised that Wedow v. City of Kansas City case is a 2006 case. This is because this case involves women, and they are the victims of the whole situation. Despite various complaints about improper firefighting uniforms and improper facilities presented by the two women, Ms. Wedow and Ms. Kline, no one in the company listened or answered their grievances. They presented complaints to the company such as in 1998 and because of their sex; the company decided to ignore them. This is a clear demonstration of gender discrimination in the workplace. Women are often discriminated in the society especially that the fire services departments are dominated by the male. This is despite the legislation; title VII of civil rights act of 1964 which ban such discrimination. It is against the law to discriminate women in relation to benefits, promotions, use of facilities, wages or training. It, therefore, appears that the company ignored the grievances of the two women, and that is why it took time for the case to be filed (Kirchner, 1992).
2. How do you think the fire department should have responded when the women registered complaints about their uniforms? Explain.

The fire department should have responded well by hearing the complaints presented by the women in regards to their uniforms. The company should have acted lawfully in line to the laws and regulations presented in title VII of civil rights act of 1964 and avoid gender bias in the fire department workplace. The fire department should have given the two women the right outfits that were fitting and tailored for the female workers to protect their safety from the duties they perform. Additionally, women lacked other basic facilities such as proper shower and restroom facilities and were forced to use the male’s facilities. The department should have ensured that proper facilities were put up for the women to use. This would ensure that the women firefighters were comfortable and free in their workplace. On the contrary to this, the company acted irresponsibly and against the law for their benefits as they considered women inferior in the workplace especially in a profession like firefighting that has always been considered as a male job.

3. Why do you think the fire department treated the female employees as it did?

The fire department treated the female employees as they did because the society always looks down on women and discriminates against them. Despite the law, many companies including the fire department often ignore the laws passed and discriminated and harass women in the workplace. This field requires brave and strong professionals who can handle all conditions yet women are considered lazy, weak and fearful to handle such conditions of a firefighter. In this case, Ms. Wedow and Ms. Kline were considered lowly, and their needs were not catered for. The company acted unlawfully towards the women as they did not provide them with their needs when they first presented the complaints. Gender prejudice exists even today in the workplaces and people consider women as vulnerable especially in fields dominated by men. They often face barriers when trying to enter into such professions considering that this job has had less number of women which is less that 3% (Cohn, 2000). Every company should abide by the laws presented that are against any discrimination in the workplace to ensure that harmony and respect are preserved.

Reference

Cohn, Samuel. (2000). Race, Gender, and Discrimination at Work. Boulder, CO. Westview Press.

Kirchner, J. C. (1992). Diversity in the fire service, face of the future. Executive Fire Officer Program. Emmitsburg, MD