Employment_at_Law

1) Based on the evidence described in the case, Marubeni America may face numerous legal problems. Because the company was claimed to pay higher salaries and bonuses to the Japanese and Asian executives, the company would be in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 which requires equal pay for men and women performing equal work. The EPA provides that “employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment” (eeoc.gov). If the company was indeed paying more to the Japanese and Asian than other employees for the same substantial work, the company would be in fault of the EPA. I believe that Marubeni America was intentionally discriminating against non-Asians due to the fact they were paying Asians a higher salary. Unless the Asians were performing different work, higher quality or substantially different work, they intentionally and knowingly discriminated in the form of compensation against non-Asians. The lawsuit also describes that Marubeni America discriminated against American, non-Asian minority men and women by paying them less, promoting them less often, and terminating them more than Asians. This would put Marubeni America in violation of the EPA, and Title V11 of CRA which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Because of the low numbers of African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian managers and employees, weekly management meetings being conducted in Japanese, executives using ethnic and racial slurs, and Presto being denied permission to hire a African-American women, it is evident that Marubeni America is indeed at fault of title V11. I feel that Marubeni America very much so violated the laws intentionally because of their actions listed above, especially due to the face that Presto was informed “we cannot hire a black person for this job.” The case also alleges Long and Presto were victims of retaliation because they complained about fraud, discrimination, and violation of immigration laws, both were place on administrative leave. “It is unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on compensation or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII, ADEA, ADA or the Equal Pay Act” (eeoc.gov). Unless there is another fact for the reasoning on why Pesto and Long were place on administrative leave, I feel Marubeni America intentionally discriminated against them in retaliation for complaining. Because of Long’s email request from the vice-president to hire a sales person stating; “male, 25-30 years old, Asian, like Chinese or Japanese, and of course, Americans or others are fine.” Then elaborating; “once American guys reached a level of income, they stop working.” It is obvious the vice-president is insinuating to hire a young male Asian. This violates Title V11 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 which prohibits discrimination of individuals over 40 years old. I feel the vice-president did this intentionally because it is a direct order and he seems to be sarcastic about hiring anyone else other than the specified. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against pregnancy related conditions, may also be violated due to the fact that Long received a message about possibly replacing a pregnant employee because she may be unstable after the delivery. If the pregnant employee was fired for this reason, it would violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. 2) The first thing I would do is conduct a meeting with all of the upper management and executives. I would educate and inform them of all the major Equal Employment Opportunity Laws and Regulations. I would describe in detail the necessary means and methods to perform and follow such laws and regulations. I would inform them of the consequences and penalties for not following the laws and regulations and show examples of similar companies who have lost large amounts of money do to legal action. I would try to show that by abiding by the laws the company would save valuable time and money. I would then provide a written document on what the company’s policy should be in regards to discrimination and all other EEO laws and regulations. I would follow up by having a meeting every two weeks until the policy is engraved in the company. Then I would conduct a meeting every six months to ensure the policy is being followed. 3) I need to inform you that we have to give every individual an equal opportunity for employment. Title V11 of the Civil Rights Act forbids any discrimination on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. We cannot hire an individual based on the fact that they are American, male or female, or the fact that they are not the ages between 25-30 years old. What we can do is interview the qualified candidates and hire the most qualified and suitable person for the job. This individual could possibly be a young Asian male, but we need to give each qualified candidate an equal opportunity. We may also be able to hire for two positions, one higher position and one lower position. Works Cited Noe, Raymond A., John R. Hollenbeck, Barry Gerhart, and Patrick M. Wright. Fundamentals of human resource management. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2009. Print "Facts About Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination." US EEOC Home Page. Web. 04 Feb. 2010. .