Hypothesis
Harassment in the workplace can be of various types. Based on the facts represented in the case, Tennie Pierce did not have substantial grounds to file a lawsuit on the basis of the offenses and hazing because of certain circumstances. In particular, the veteran initiated irrelevant behavior that instigated his colleagues to haze. More importantly, the fact that Piece participated in hazing accidents did not justify his decision to sue his fellow firefighters because of the case of racial discrimination. In fact, there were no grounds to conclude that the case was directly connected with sexual and racial harassment.
Discussion of Relevant Law
In order to understand the case, it is purposeful to consider the legal issues identifying discrimination and harassment in the workplace. According to U.S. Discriminatory Harassment Policy,
…discriminatory harassment is verbal or physical conduct of shows hostility toward an individual because of his or her race color, gender, national origin, age (40 or over), physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, or because of his or her opposition to discrimination or his or her participation in the discrimination complaints process (U.S. Department of State n. p.).
To enlarge on these issues, the cases of harassment and discrimination involve racial “jokes”, offensive comments, physical or verbal assault premised on the person’s color or race. Negative comments related to color, age, or disability, as well as distribution of offensive cartoons, and pictures are involved in the list of examples of inappropriate behavior and harassment in the workplace (US. Department of State n. p.).
Harassment constitutes a type of discrimination, a specific way that employees use to mistreat other employees (England 3). Specifically, “An employer harasses an employee when it targets someone in a protected category and subjects that person to unwelcome treatment that affects their job” (England 3). There are several legislative acts that prohibit and prevent discrimination and harassment. One of the most important laws related to the cases is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962 according to which discrimination premised on color, religion, race, and sex is prohibited in case the organization has over 15 employees. The Civil Rights Act of 1866,42, U.S.C. § 1981 also “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in the making, enforcing, and performance of contracts…ethnicity, if that discrimination is racial in character” (England 11). In addition, because harassment and discrimination have been predominantly explored in the sphere of legal cases, specific attention to precedents should also be given. While considering Title VII, it is also purposeful to note that individuals making claims for discrimination and hazing in the workplace also inform about negative experiences of retaliation. The claims do not stipulate that the original complaint should be considered in legal terms. In fact, complaints of retaliation demonstrate that only the original complaint premised on a reasonable ground can be regarded as a reasonable complaint. In addition, specific emphasis should also be placed on harassment and legal standards evolving from these assumptions. The forensic aspect of legal law is also important to consider the case of racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace.
Racial discrimination can also be considered as an indirect act, which has also taken place as a legally recognized issue. Specifically, Tobler introduces the U.S. law definition of indirect discrimination, which is usually identified as “disparate (or adverse) impact (as opposed to disparate treatment) can be found comparatively earl” (91). The given definition is also represented in Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it is also considered in other historical contexts previously. Though the case Griggs v. Duke Power Co 401 U.S. 424 (1971) does not relate to actual legal dilemma of the case, it stipulates the accident of disparate impact and indirect discrimination in the workplace.
Discussion of Facts and Law
With regard to the above-presented laws, cases, and regulations, along with psychological and ethical concerns, specific emphasis should be placed on the analysis of racial discrimination grounds, as well as which cases are considered as illegal. With regard to the facts of the case and the definition of harassment and discrimination, Mr. Pierce did not have substantial grounds for considering this act as racial discrimination, but only an act of hazing and dehumanization. It could not have any connection to the deep roots of slavery and of associating African Americans with gods. Specific attention should also be given the definition of discriminatory harassment, which identifies any unlawful act stipulating the mistreatment of an employee based on his or her race, gender, or age. Neither of these conforms to the established legal definition. The Title VII the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also introduces a number of rules and regulations under which harassment in the workplaces is unacceptable. According to the provision of the act, the complaints should be based on reasonable grounds of reasonable individuals. Because Mr. Pierce neglected the fact of instigation, as well as other cases of hazing initiated by him, his complaint cannot be regarded as a reasonable complaint. Specifically, by repeating the phrase “Feed the Big Dog”, the plaintiff also expressed his superiority and mistreatment in relation to his colleagues. Besides, the cases of hazing cannot contribute to the good reputation of Mr. Pierce. It is evident that putting dog food into the dinner is by all means violation of employment act, but it does not relate to racial issues.
Similar concerns can be debated while considering the underpinnings of the concept of indirect discrimination. According to the lawyers defending Mr. Pierce, the connection between dog food and black man “…resonates with the deep historical roots of slavery and the corresponding dehumanization” (Banks n. p.). On the one hand, the given explanation could be regarded as a reasonable ground for a lawsuit provided the claimant had ethically justified and ethical behavior toward his colleagues. However, such an assumption is deprived of legal basis because of Mr. Pierce’s previous negative practices. Moreover, the firefighters’ fraternity has a number of rituals that considered it acceptable to practice hazing in the employed environment.
While comparing the case with other legal cases, specific attention should be paid on experiences, contexts, and circumstances, under which these actions have been carried out. At this point, the case provides as story of indirect impact of the company’s policies on African-American employees. However, this aspect differs greatly from the matters represented in the case under analysis. Based on professional experience, the court decision, particularly the decision of Mayor Villaraigosa to withhold his signature is reasonable because both part of the case violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In addition, the case did not reveal any cases racial and sexual harassment with regard to the above presented laws and regulations.
References
Banks, Sandy. Black Firefighter Settles Suit over Racial Prank.American Renaissance. 2006. Web.
England, Debora. The Essential Guide to Handling Workplace Harassment & Discrimination. US: Nolo. 2009, Print.
Griggs v. Duke Power CO. 1971. Case Study. Web.
Tobler, Christa. Indirect Discrimination: A Case Study into the Development of the Legal Concept of Indirect Discrimination under Ec Law. US: Intersentia. 2005, Print.
U.S. Department of State. Discriminator Harassment Policy: 3 FAM 1526 Discriminatory Harassment Policy. 2005. Web.