Work Must Be Orginal***APA Format*** Please Read Assignment Carefully!!!!

Link to Case-----  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1161025.html

 

Assignment Instructions

Refer to the "The Hospitality Industry in Court" segment on page 219 of the textbook. Review and consider all details of the case of Schurr v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, 196 F.3d 486 (3rd Cir. 1999). Write an argumentative paper agreeing or disagreeing with the actual result of the case. Your argument for or against the decision will need to ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING;

1. Employee rights
2. Title VII provisions
3. Discrimination

• Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message.
• APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to APA (6th edition) style and formatting.
• Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.
• Length: 700 to 1100 words demonstrating learning, research, and analysis.

THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY IN COURT

To understand how difficult it is to interpret and comply with antidiscrimination laws, consider the case of Schurr v. Resorts Int’l Hotel, 196 F.3d 486 (3d Cir. 1999).

FACTUAL SUMMARY

Karl Schurr (Schurr), a white male, worked on a part-time basis as a light and sound technician for Resorts International Hotel (Resorts), a New Jersey casino and hotel. In 1994, a full-time position became available for which Schurr applied. He was one of five applicants for the position. Resorts narrowed down the pool to Schurr and one other candidate, Ronald Boykin, a black male. Both candidates were qualified for the position and were regarded as equally qualified by Resorts.

A New Jersey law was in effect requiring all casino license holders to take affirmative action measures to ensure equal employment opportunities. In short, the regulations required the casinos in New Jersey to employee a certain percentage of women and minorities in specific job categories throughout the casino organization. The job for which Schurr and Boykin applied was in the technician category. Under the regulations, 25 percent of Resorts technicians were to be minorities. At the time Schurr and Boykin applied, only 22.25 percent of the technicians working for Resorts were minorities.

In an attempt to comply with state law and state casino regulations, the management for Resorts hired Boykin over Schurr on the basis of race. Bill Stevenson, the director of show operations and stage manager for Resorts, stated he was obligated to pick the equally qualified minority candidate in order to put Resorts in line with state employment goals. Schurr filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for discrimination on the basis of race and sued Resorts for a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

QUESTION FOR THE COURT

The question for the court was whether the consideration of race as a factor in hiring was a remedial measure allowed under Title VII. Schurr argued the use of race as factor in hiring was a violation of Title VII. Resorts claimed the use of race was a nondiscriminatory component of its affirmative action plan designed to increase minority representation in certain job categories, hence fell under the remedial section of Title VII. The remedial aspect of Title VII was designed to cure past discrimination and inequities in minority hiring. Schurr argued Resorts’ affirmative action plan and the casino regulations were not based on evidence of historic or current discrimination in the casino industry.

 

DECISION

The court held the affirmative action plan used by Resorts and the New Jersey law violated Title VII. The plan was not based on historic or current discrimination in the casino industry or in the technician job category. Since there was no evidence of past or current discrimination, Resorts’ affirmative action plan was not necessary in the technician job category.