Subject

Students Name

Institution of Affiliation

Date

Title VII and Other Legislations- Employee Protection

Case A:

The legal remedies that Green would pursue against Missouri- Pacific includes The violation of Title VII of the United States Constitution on the basis that the company refuses to hire persons with previous criminal offenses. In Missouri, the rates of incarceration are low, and therefore the company may not be guilty of denying employment based on the criminal record. The additional remedies that Green would have if the office of his job application were based at Pennsylvania is that of racial discrimination. According to Green he had been convicted for a felony may years ago and the previous work history is smooth with no other criminal record, and therefore, he was discriminated by the rail company on the basis of color citing prior conviction. In Pennsylvania, there are higher rates of incarceration among the African-Americans as well as the Latinos. An employer with a policy of excluding the employment of all individuals with a conviction history may be accused to be guilty of denying employment on the basis of racial discrimination event in the event that it was not the intent of the employer. The reason is that the region has a higher rate of incarceration implying that a large number of the workforce have been convicted at least once and the weight of the offense, as well as the duration of the past offense, is what matters.

Case B:

The argument for the case for the employer’s defense is that the attack of the employee was work-related and therefore should be covered by the exclusivity provisions of workers. The argument against the employer’s defense is that the employer was responsible for the negligent hiring as well as negligent supervision. The court should rule in favor of the employer in that the accident was not as a result of the employer’s negligence but can be termed as a work-related accident and to which is covered by the exclusivity provisions of workers and this implies that the employer was not negligent as he covered the employees for such events.