Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now

As part of its collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Company established an onthe-job craft training program at its Gramercy, Louisiana, plant. The selection of trainees for the program was generally based on seniority, but the selection guidelines included an affirmative action feature under which at least 50 percent of the new trainees had to be black until the percentage of black skilled craft workers in the plant approximated the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. The purposes of the affirmative action feature were to break down old patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy, and to open up employment opportunities for blacks in occupations that had traditionally been closed to them. Kaiser employee Brian Weber, who was white, applied for the program but was rejected. He would have qualified for the program had the affirmative action feature not existed. Weber sued Kaiser and the union in federal district court, arguing that the racial preference violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 703(a) of the Act states: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Section 703(d) includes a similar provision specifically forbidding racial discrimination in admission to apprenticeship or other training programs. Weber won his case in the federal district court and in the federal court of appeals. Kaiser and the union appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Did the affirmative action feature of the training program violate Title VII’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of race?

As part of its collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Company established an onthe-job craft training program at its Gramercy, Louisiana, plant. The selection of trainees for the program was generally based on seniority, but the selection guidelines included an affirmative action feature under which at least 50 percent of the new trainees had to be black until the percentage of black skilled craft workers in the plant approximated the percentage of blacks in the local labor force. The purposes of the affirmative action feature were to break down old patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy, and to open up employment opportunities for blacks in occupations that had traditionally been closed to them. Kaiser employee Brian Weber, who was white, applied for the program but was rejected. He would have qualified for the program had the affirmative action feature not existed. Weber sued Kaiser and the union in federal district court, arguing that the racial preference violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 703(a) of the Act states: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Section 703(d) includes a similar provision specifically forbidding racial discrimination in admission to apprenticeship or other training programs. Weber won his case in the federal district court and in the federal court of appeals. Kaiser and the union appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Did the affirmative action feature of the training program violate Title VII’s prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of race?

Interested in a PLAGIARISM-FREE paper based on these particular instructions?...with 100% confidentiality?

Order Now