Sex Discrimination Essay, Research Paper

The critical issue in this case is whether Farm Fresh Food, Inc. acted lawfully by denying employment to Jennifer Brand. Farm Fresh Foods further claim that Ms. Brand failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sex or religion. Furthermore, they claim that even had such case been established, Farm Fresh decision to deny employment to Ms. Brand was not a pretext for intentional discrimination. When Ms. Brand first applied for a job as a “female apprentice meat cutter”, which would be an entry level management position, she was interviewed by then vice president of human resources for Farm Fresh, Richard Marty. After making it a requirement for Farm Fresh to give her Sunday’s off due to her religious faith, Ms. Brand received a letter from Mr. Marty stating that Farm Fresh did not have a position for her at the time, but would keep her application in the active file for a year in case something turns up. However, when a position became available which Ms. Brand was very qualified for, she was not called up or scheduled for another interview. The Court believes that a prima facie case for sexual discrimination is established in this case. In order to shift the Burden of Proof in a disparate treatment case, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by preponderance of the following evidence: (1) he/she is a member of a protected class; (2) applied for and was qualified for a job opening; (3) rejected for a position; and (4) the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants whose qualifications were similar to those of the plaintiff. Thus, it is the opinion of this Court that a prima facie case has been established. Ms. Brand has fulfilled all of the required criteria for establishing a prima facie case. (1) Being a female, she is a member of a protected class; (2) She did apply for a position and due to her previous meat wrapper experience she was very qualified for that position; (3) even though she was qualified she still was rejected for the position; and (4) the position remained opened for a year and another applicant got the job without Ms. Brand even being considered for it.Upon establishing a prima facie case for disparate treatment, we will now see if Farm’s Fresh reasons for denying employment to Ms. Brand were a pretext for discrimination based on religion and/or sex. Upon being interviewed by Mr. Marty, Ms. Brand was denied employment after making it a prerequisite for employment to have Sundays off due to her religious faith. Mr. Marty replied that Farm Fresh did not have a position available at the time. However, it is this Court’s belief that Mr. Marty denied employment solely due to the plaintiff’s inability to work Sundays. The employer would not go through the trouble of interviewing an applicant if they do not have a position available. Thus, Ms. Marty was denied employment due to her religion, which is a violation of Title VII. However, this instance was just the beginning of religious discrimination administered by Farm Fresh Foods.