I really do not understand the two case laws presented here. The one think I think I understand is that the results of both cased helped with nondiscrimination based on race. I am thinking that to answer this question I should focus my response in increasing greater security measures be taken - not backing down to threats.
Can you please help me descibe the jist of the two case laws as they may pertain in this situation? I am not at all used to reading law and this is confusing me. I only need to make a 4 paragraph explanation.
Read the landmark cases of Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. U.S. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=379&page=241)and Katzenbach v. McClung(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=379&invol=294), which upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as being a constitutional exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The leisure group of DWI owns and operates several hotels and casinos, one of which is "The Queen of The Nile" casino, on the Mississippi River waterfront in New Orleans. This Egyptian themed hotel and casino is quite popular with Arab-Americans and visitors who are citizens of nations in the Middle East and Northern Africa.
Recent events in the Middle East have led to an increase in anti-Arab sentiment, and several fringe groups have actually resorted to violence against persons who appear or are believed to be of Middle Eastern decent and damage to properties they own or frequent. In recent weeks, DWI and the hotel have received threats against the property and its guests via mail, phone, and e-mail. In response, DWI has circulated a memo to employees advising them of the threats and has increased security patrols on the premises. Last night, one or more snipers shot at arriving and departing guests who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent; two guests and one employee were injured and there was damage to several doors and windows near the hotel entrance.
Additional threats against the hotel have been received, threatening bombings and additional violence unless DWI stops allowing persons believed to be Arab-Americans or others of Middle Eastern descent to stay at or visit the hotel property; several employees have claimed to be sick and have failed to appear at work this morning; Arab-American groups and others are threatening a boycott of DWI products and services worldwide if the company acquiesces to the blackmail.
Discuss the legal and ethical considerations raised by this situation and make a recommendation to the Board as to what actions DWI should take.
Referring to the case scenario, this solution discusses the legal and ethical considerations raised by this situation e.g. who should the hotel serve or not serve, and makes a recommendation to the Board as to what actions DWI should take. It describes the two case laws as they may pertain in this situation.