Week 2 Case Study
Please read the case and answer the questions relating to the topic. Please prepare a 2 – 3 page summary, fully addressing all of the questions and fully supporting your views with the appropriate references, which should be included via in-text citations and listed on a reference page. Please review and follow the Case Analysis Guidelines. The assignment should be submitted as an MS Word document.
EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America, 49. F.3d 1418, 1420-21 (9th Cir. 1994) The plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC that the defendant, Insurance Company of North America (INA), had rejected his application for a loss control inspector job on the basis of age discrimination. The defendant had advertised the position in a local paper. The ad read, “The ideal candidate will have a college degree and two years’ experience in loss control..” among other information. The company subsequently hired a 28-year-old college grad with no loss control experience. The plaintiff had 30 years of loss control experience and was over the age of 40. The company claimed that an employee with that much loss control experience would have been overqualified for the position and, in fact, would have delved too deeply into the insured’s affairs and claims.
Questions
- Is this case one of disparate impact or disparate treatment?
- What is the legal basis or provision for the alleged discrimination?
- What would be his prima facie case?
- Based on your answer to the second question, what defense would INA (the defendant) use?
- What information would the plaintiff’s attorneys ask for? The defendant’s attorneys?
Week 2 Case Study
Introduction
In the case of EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America, a man applied for a position that he was well-qualified for, however, he did not receive a job offer. Here the job was given to the younger person who didn’t have any knowledge about the work. Here, in this case, the plentiful says that he was not offered the job by the company and the company stated that he was overqualified for the job though the company has given the job to a person who has no experience in the work. Here as per the plentiful, the cases state that the discrimination has taken place where the plentiful is unhappy and stated that though he was sufficiently qualified but did not get the opportunity because of his game (Barak et al. 2021, p.207). He states that age discrimination has taken place with him in the company and according to him it is one of the main reasons for not hiring him.
Disparate impact or disparate treatment
Both disparate treatment and disparate impact are discriminatory practices. Disparate impact occurs when policies, practices, rules, or systems that appear to be neutral result in a disproportionate impact on a protected group. For example, testing all applicants and using results from that test that will unintentionally eliminate certain minority applicants disproportionately has disparate impact. Disparate treatment is intentional employment discrimination (Bing, Pettit & Slavinski, 2022, p.5). For example, testing a particular skill of only certain minority applicants is disparate treatment. The practice that took place by the Insurance Company of North America against the planti8full application can be termed as disparate treatment. The reason it is termed as the separate treatment is that here we see that plentiful has been rejected due to its gap and the discrimination is done
Hence, the above question highlights the problem of disparate impact. The company applied a neutral policy for employing a loss control inspector job but it had a disproportionately negative impact on the plaintiff. It does not require showing the intention of the employer. The employer company treated the plaintiff in a different way than others in a similar situation.
Legal basis
The basis of disparate treatment lies in US labor law. A violation of TITLE VII of the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately negative effect on the members of a protected class. Therefore, disparate impact theory under TITLE VII prohibits employers from using a facially neutral policy that has an unjustified adverse effect on the members of a protected class (Jackson, Hackett & Steptoe, 2019, p.200). A facially neutral employment policy does not seem discriminatory in the face of it but is discriminatory in its application. Other federal laws also have disparate impact provisions, including the AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1968 creates a cause of action for disparate impact.
Prima Facie
A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is adequately established by a party’s evidence to justify a verdict in their favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party. According to the prima facia, it can be said that the person who brings the case of discrimination must have enough evidence to show that the wrong has been done and the discrimination is done (Tharp et al. 2022, p.5). In the case of EEOC v. Insurance Company of North America, the plaintiff’s prima facie case is that he was in the protected group which was 40 years old and older. Another piece of evidence is that he was well experienced in the work and was also qualified for the position of Loss Control Inspector but was not hired. The other evidence is that the company has hired a person who has no experience or is less qualified for the work. Here each piece of evidence shows that discrimination has been done in the work
The Defense
Once the plaintiff made a prima facie case, the Insurance Company of North America must present evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory motive for the challenged decision. Here the defense that the insurance company of America would use is that they have previously hired candidates as well who were less qualified despite their ages. So here the defense would make the valid r4esaomns to prove that they have the valid reason to prove that they have the proper day which proves that the things which the plentiful has made his based less as in the past also they do not have this type of the discrimination. Here the defense should also show valid data that the polantiful is overqualified for the post and the discrimination is not done according to the gap which the plentiful has demanded that the discrimination is according to the game. A valid test should be given to prove it. Here the defense has also proved that he has the right to prove that he is correct. The defendant should provide valid reasons for the justification with the proper evidence of it as well.
Attorney Recommendation
Taking into account the details of the case, it can be inferred that there is a disparate impact on the plaintiff and he should be compensated for it. The employer company should either appoint him as the loss control inspector or compensate him for discriminating against him by appointing a younger candidate with less experience than himself. According to the issue, that has taken place, it can be said that the plentiful has a valid point and have also evidence of the issues that he has been facing (Rothermund, Klusmann & Zacher, 2021, p.5). The plentiful attorney should ask to compare their client’s qualifications to whether the charges made by the plentiful are valid or not. The other things that should be done are that the defense should provide valid proof that the people they have hired are more suitable for the particular position than it was been rejected by the other party. Here both parties should provide their evidence related to it.
References
Barak, M. P. (2021). Can You Hear Me Now? Attorney Perceptions of Interpretation, Technology, and Power in Immigration Court. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 9(4), 207-223.
Bing, L., Pettit, B., & Slavinski, I. (2022). Incomparable Punishments: How Economic Inequality Contributes to the Disparate Impact of Legal Fines and Fees. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(2), 118-136.
Jackson, S. E., Hackett, R. A., & Steptoe, A. (2019). Associations between age discrimination and health and wellbeing: cross-sectional and prospective analysis of the English longitudinal study of ageing. The Lancet Public Health, 4(4), e200-e208.
Rothermund, K., Klusmann, V., & Zacher, H. (2021). Age discrimination in the context of motivation and healthy aging. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(Supplement_2), S167-S180.
Tharp, K., Santavicca, S., Hughes, D. R., Kishore, D., Banja, J. D., & Duszak Jr, R. (2022). Characteristics of Radiologists Serving as Medical Malpractice Expert Witnesses for Defense Versus Plaintiff. Journal of the American College of Radiology.
