Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    McDonnell Douglas v. Green

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Based on this case
    Percy Green, an African American man who had been employed by McDonnell Douglas, was laid off as a result of a reduction in McDonnell's workforce. After the layoff Green participated in a protest against alleged racial discrimination by McDonnell in its employment practices The protest included a stall-in,Â? whereby Green and others stopped their cars along roads leading to the plant to block access during the morning rush hour. At a later date, McDonnell advertised for mechanics. Green applied for reemployment and was rejected by the company on the grounds of his participation in the stall-in, which the company argued was unlawful conduct.

    In its ruling, the Court stated that Green had established a prima facie case and that McDonnell had shown a nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring Green because of his participation in the stall-in

    Explain the following points:

    A case summary
    The court's ruling
    What this means for the organization in the case study and for businesses in general
    What legal precedence the ruling sets for most businesses
    The role the federal enforcement agency plays in ensuring the organizationââ?¬â?¢s compliance to regulation standards

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 1:54 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Ã?â?¢ A case summary
    Green was an African-American mechanic lab technician who was fired in the course of a general decrease in the company's workforce. Green was a civil rights activist. He was discharged from his job and after that he engaged in a protest that included troublesome and illegal protest. His protests were against his former employer and it included the claim that his discharge was illegal. His protests also claimed that the company McDonald Douglas Corporation was indulging in illegal hiring practices. Later when McDonald Douglas Corporation advertized for qualified personnel, it rejected Green's application for reemployment because he had been involved in illegal conduct. Green made a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that there was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 1964. The EEOC felt that there was a reasonable cause to believe that the rejection of Green was a violation of Section 704(a) of the Civil Rights Act. This means that the law does not allow discrimination against those applicants that protest against discriminatory employment conditions. However, the EEOC ddi not make any finding that McDonald Douglas Corporation had violated Section 703 (a)(1) which disallows discrimination in any employment decision. When the suit was brought to trial court, it ruled that illegal activity of Green was not protected by Section 704 (a) but dismissed the Section 703(a)(1) claim because the EEOC did not find anything related to it. When the case was taken up by the Circuit Court, it upheld the trial court ruling ...

    Solution Summary

    This explanation provides you a comprehensive argument relating to McDonnell Douglas v. Green