Law Essay Sample on CARDWARE's Defenses

Part I: Discrimination and CARDWARE's Defenses

Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications are the credentials that employers are allowed to consider when making their hiring and retention decisions. These qualifications relate to a primary job duty, and are essential for the operation of a given business (Schiff, 1993). To that end, CARDWARE did have genuine BFOQs in its ad because the ad specified that the company required an athletic, youthful, and capable with style candidate. This is the reason why CARDWARE selected Noah over Petunia. However, keeping with The Sporty One's slogan, the company goes against its slogan by selecting Noah over Petunia. The slogan states, 'You don't have to be an athlete to look and feel like one', yet the company selects the slender and athletic Noah. From Petunia's point of view, the action by the company were discriminatory under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which serves to protect employees from age, sex, and religion-based discrimination (Rutherglen, 2014). It is, however, crucial to note that CARDWARE observed the rule of Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications that permit employers to employ individuals based on age, nationality, sex, or race (Bryant, 1998).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Part II: Lawsuits and CARDWARE's Defenses

In an event where Petunia decides on filing a lawsuit against CARDWARE and The Sporty One, it is apparent that CARDWARE would be held responsible for the actions of Noah. Under the Negligence Theory, Petunia could sue CARDWARE based on Noah's lack of observing the predominant standards of conduct required to avoid arbitrary possibilities of harm to others (Keating, 1996). The defenses for CARDWARE might include negating an element of Petunia's cause of action by proving that the company owed no duty to her, or that Noah exercised reasonable care in handling Petunia. Additionally, Hetty's estate has a legal right to claim that CARDWARE was responsible for her death. However, the estate will have to prove negligence in the sense that CARDWARE owed Hetty a duty of care and the company breached the duty. For CARDWARE, the company may assert the Contributory Negligence Theory to decrease the indemnities to a percentage in relation to the company's responsibility for the death of Hetty (De Mot, 2013).

References

Bryant, W. R. (1998). Justifiable Discrimination: The Need for a Statutory Bona Fide Occupational Qualification Defense for Race Discrimination. Ga. L. Rev., 33, 211.

De Mot, J. (2013). Comparative versus contributory negligence: A comparison of the litigation expenditures. International Review of Law and Economics, 33, 54-61.

Keating, G. C. (1996). Reasonableness and rationality in negligence theory. Stanford Law Review, 311-384.

Rutherglen, G. (2014). Claims of Employment Discrimination Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Civil Rights. In Statistical Methods in Discrimination Litigation (pp. 47-68). CRC Press.

Schiff, M. (1993). The Age Discrimination in Employment Act: Whither the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification and Law Enforcement Exemptions. . John's L. Rev., 67, 13.