21-15 Kargbo v. Phila. Corp. for Aging, 16 F. Supp. 3d 512 (2014)
I think the
court acted in favour of Plaintiff Kargbo. First, there is proof of violation
of the employment terms defined in Title
VII, Civil Rights Act. The Title safeguards employees and job applicants
from (race, gender, skin colour, national origin, and religious) discrimination
in the place of work (U.S. Department of Labour, n.d.). The section of Title
VII that matches this case is the one that forbids the segregation of employees
on a particular basis, in an attempt to minimize the employment opportunities
available to them (Kubasek, 2016).
Again, Plaintiff
Kargo’s allegations fall under the age discrimination section of the 1967
Employment Act. According to SEC.623. [Section 4] of the 1967
Employment Act, it is illegal for an employer to place an employee in a
category that limits his or her ability to get employment opportunities because
of his or her age (U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, 2021). What Mendelsohn did to
Kargbo, thus, violates this section of the Act.
In other
words, Mendelsohn suggested that the plaintiff be terminated by citing that his
learning orientation and communication abilities did not match the level of the
young college graduates (age discrimination). Even the termination of Kargbo’s
employment is more inclined to workplace discrimination than his lack of
effective communication skills or inability to learn. For instance, there is no
way the plaintiff could have passed the training and joined work if his
capabilities were as poor as the defendant alleged. The possible cause for the plaintiff’s
termination, therefore, is that the defendant got used to working with younger
people and was not willing to work with a 52-year-old.
21-17 Bashir v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co.,
No. 1016-CV38690 (Mo., Jackson Co. Cir. May 3, 2012)
Yes, this case involves discrimination. From the short illustration, it
is evident that all of Susann Bashir’s co-workers and supervisors had no issues
with her before 2005 when she converted to Islam. This also means that the
challenges she faced in her place of work after 2005 resulted from the fact
that she became a Muslim.
One of her supervisors, for example, said she was a part of the “bomb
people” and told her to take off the “hat-thing” (her hijab), while another one
of her supervisors tried taking it off forcefully (Kubasek, 2016).
Even if the company found no evidence to back Bashir’s allegations, the
activities described herein point to religion-based discrimination at her
workplace.
