Gender Discrimination

Gender Discrimination

1.         Genevieve’s claim that the policy of allowing her to such only female miners is discriminatory is incorrect. The policy has been implemented by the diamond mine company in accordance with the constitution. The constitution states that it is illegal for a guard to search a person of the opposite sex, unless it is an emergency. The procedures involved in a body-cavity search are more invasive than a normal body search and therefore if guards were allowed to search people of the opposite gender, this would lead to claims of sexual harassment. Genevieve’s assertion is also incorrect because the policy was not implemented with the intention to discriminate against female guards. For a gender discrimination claim to hold, it must be evident that the intention is placed with the intention to discriminate against a certain gender (Bennet-Alexander & Hartman, 2005). In this case, the company implemented the policy because it was necessary for the job. The body cavity search is crucial to prevent the theft of diamonds. The company compensates the guards by the number of diamonds found in order to encourage them to conduct the searches carefully. The policy was implemented because the company recognizes that it is the right of the mineworkers to be searched by guards of the same gender. It is therefore not gender discrimination but a legitimate occupational requirement (Block & Wolkinson, 1996).

2.         Victoria’s claim is valid because she has demonstrated exemplary performance in the 3 years that she has worked at TEDCO and has been named employee recurrently. This is evidence that prior to announcing that she was pregnant, she had met and surpassed her employer’s expectations for a substantial period. Brian’s sudden claims that her performance did not meet the expected standard are therefore prejudiced. Victoria’s claims are also validated by the fact that in the entire organization the ratio of female employees to male employees is very low, and the female employees do not have young children yet many of the male employees do. The fact that Victoria had told her supervisor that she was pregnant and the criticisms came immediately after the announcement also provides evidence to the fact that he discriminated against her due to the pregnancy (Bennet-Alexander & Hartman, 2005).

In addition to this, the fact that Brain fired another female employee who had told him that she was pregnant also proves that the company discriminates against pregnant women. This fact also explains why none of the female workers has young children. Victoria also has a valid claim based on Brian’s attitude. Brian’s negative attitudes towards pregnant women create a hostile working environment for pregnant employees and eventually results in their dismissal. Therefore, Victoria can claim that Brian’s attitude towards women with young children directly result in the contravention of labor laws whereby pregnant women are dismissed and the company does not hire women with young children.














Bennet-Alexander, D., D. & Hartman, L., P. (2005). Employment law for business. New York, NY: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Block R., N. & Wolkinson, B., W. (1996). Employment law: the workplace rights of employees and employers. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.


Still stressed from student homework?
Get quality assistance from academic writers!

WELCOME TO OUR NEW SITE. We Have Redesigned Our Website With You In Mind. Enjoy The New Experience With 15% OFF