1. In this first case no legal issue has occurred. The club is protected by BFOQ which stands for bonafide occupational qualification, which protects individuals from discriminating against those who don’t fulfill job policy. Although, the employer is aware that they have discriminated against a particular group of people. The BFOQ justifies their actions those who aren’t women for several of reasons. The club has an audience of about 95% of which are males. With this description of the bar alone, the bar would probably just hire women instead of men to keep business going.
2. This is a very tricky case. However, the actions that Annie is accused of doing and gets terminated for isn't protected under Title VII. If Hastily and Associates can prove to the courts that this discipline policy is in actual writing, then they can possibly justify their actions. However, if the company has no proof of such policy, then they wrongfully terminated and also violated The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which is protected by Title VII. This act protects women who are pregnant in the workforce and those who get terminated for various unlawful reasons. Although, the company is saying…show more content… In this case, under equal pay it states that if a company has a policy that pays individuals extra because of work performance, then this doesn't show a violation of the Equal Pay Act. However, with this case it seems as if John is favoring Matt over Marilyn because he is seeing him. In order for us to come to a conclusion we would need more information about both Marilyn and Matt's work performance. Also the fact that John is paying Matt an extra $5.00 an hour is something that we should question. Especially since John and Matt are seeing each other, we would need more information about Matt and John's relationship to be able to determine if there are any acts of sexual harassment. As a result we can't determine if Marilyn has experienced any acts of unequal pay until we get more