Case Analysis for Weaver v. Nebo School District

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Legal Issue

Since the 1960s civil rights movement, various federal and state laws have been made which prohibits discrimination of employees on the basis of gender, race, color, national origin, age, religion and now sexual orientation (Miller & Jentz, 2009).The main legal issue in the case involving Weaver and Nebo school district revolves around the question whether it is constitutional to deny her an opportunity to coach Spanish Fork High school volleyball team because of her sexual orientation.

This case also involves the issue of whether the school administration should deny Ms. Weaver her freedom of speech in regard to discussing and talking openly and publicly about her sexual orientation while at the same time her fellow heterosexual teachers are not prohibited from discussing openly such topics (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2008).

Facts

It is a legal fact arising from the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal protection that no employee should be discriminated against because of his or her sexual orientation.

In addition, homosexual employees should not be threatened with unjustifiable disciplinary actions or restricted for speech which their heterosexual counterparts are not similarly sanctioned for (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman 2008).

Doing contrary to that rule beats the logic behind the principle of equal protection. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence from the defendants in this case that shows how the plaintiff’s sexual orientation bears any relationship based on reason to her competence as a teacher or a coach (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman 2008).

Discussion

Discrimination of employees on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability and color is utterly prohibited under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its subsequent amendments such as First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal protection (Miller & Jentz, 2009; Bennett-Alexander & Hartman 2008).

Therefore, facts and arguments raised by the court in favor of Ms. Weaver are properly legally grounded and reasonably unchallengeable even in another higher court of law. They are also properly precedential as demonstrated by the Supreme Court rulings in the Romer v. Evans and Brown v. Board of Education cases (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman 2008).

These rulings demonstrate that if a community’s view of the protected class is founded up on nothing more than unfounded hatred, stereotypes and assumptions, it is essentially unreasonable and does not provide any legal foundation for the School District’s decisions against Ms. Weaver whose job performance as a teacher and coach was undisputedly beyond distinction irrespective of her sexual orientation (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman 2008; Miller & Jentz , 2009).

HRM Implications

Decision of the court in this case will deter and discourage employers, co-workers, as well as labor unions, from discriminating against employees belonging to the protected class and more so homosexuals who have suffered silently for a long period of time. It will also encourage homosexuals to talk openly without fear about their sexual orientation and fantasies like their heterosexual counterparts.

It also has potential of leading to a change of the community’s irrational perception of the minority groups in the community. Furthermore, it will discourage human resource managers and overall organizational management from tying up an individual employee’s competence to his or her sexual orientation or other natural endowments like color or disability among others.

How should a manager respond in his or her own organization in light of this decision?

A prudent manager should seek to increase diversity awareness and skills among its employees, senior officials and other significant stakeholders like directors and shareholders in order to ensure that discrimination against all individual employees and others on the basis of unfounded hatred, assumptions and stereotyping is reduced and avoided.

Doing so would ensure that his or her organization is able to shun unnecessary and avoidable damages to employees or customers or any other stakeholder doing business with his or her organization.

Reference List

Bennett-Alexander, D., & Hartman, L. P. (2008). Employment Law for Business. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Miller, R. L. & Jentz, G. A. (2009). Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Click Here To Order Now!