Case Law Analysis

Case Law AnalysisName
Institution
Caw Law AnalysisThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is an agency that allows fair treatment in the workplace. In other words, it ensures adherence to civil rights laws in work areas. The organization was established in 1965 and has solved many cases dealing with race, sex, origin, religion cases among others. This paper aims to analyze a racial discrimination case that was handled by the EEOC.
In October 2012, a case arose against the AA Foundries Incorporated company on the grounds of racial discrimination (U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2012). The complaint was filed by several black employees in the San Antonio plant to the EEOC. The facility was under a white supervisor, Ronnie Hunt, who was found guilty of using “the nigga word” to refer to the black employees. On top of this, he insulted them by calling them “these motherfucking boys” and posted racially discriminative material in the break room. The material had phrases such as “you people” indicating the African-American employees. He also accused the employees of stealing and “always wanting welfare.” The employees were fed up with the racial slurs and reported the harassment to the EEOC. A while later, a noose was seen in the workplace which many interpreted as a form of threat. The white supervisor argued that it was not a big deal and many who complained were being too sensitive. In fact, during the court proceedings, the supervisor commented that he did not have an issue with derogatory terms in the workplace.

The court found that the company was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was dealt with by Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth of the Texas District Court.
Judge Harry upheld the jury verdict on an award of $200,000 as punitive damage to the three African-American employees. The court awarded $100,000 to former employee Christopher Strickland, $60,000 to former employee Leroy Beal, and $40,000 to former employee Kenneth Bacon. Furthermore, the company was ordered to design internal methods of handling discriminatory complaints seeing that they lacked them. Also, the company had to conduct one-hour training about equal employment opportunities to their employees. They also had to revise their anti-harassment policy and distribute it to all employees. The judge ordered an injunction relief that the required the company to cease employment practices that created a hostile work environment. The outcome of this case was fair and just. The punitive damage given the verdict would ensure that the company does not repeat the same mistake. The judgment also serves as a warning to other companies who allow racial harassment in their workplaces (Consumer Attorneys of California, 2018). It can be viewed as a wake-up call to all employers and employees who condone or are complacent with such behavior. The internal methods of dealing with harassment claims and the anti-harassment policies ensured that the company becomes accountable for their actions. The decision by the court showed that the EEOC would not stand by and allow unequal treatment in the workplaces. Therefore, as the voice of the oppressed, the public can put their trust in them.
Conclusively, discrimination is discouraged in the workplace through such verdicts by the court and protection from the EEOC. In this case, the decision was correct, and the AA Foundries Inc. deserved to pay the afflicted employees as punitive damage for their actions. Furthermore, it ensures similar discriminations do not occur.

ReferencesConsumer Attorneys of California, … (2018). Punitive Damages. Retrieved from https://www.caoc.org/index.cfm?pg=pundamagesU.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, … (2012, October 12). Court Orders AA Foundries to Take Extensive Measures to Prevent Racial Harassment. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-12-12.cfm